calvinball a écrit :This profile section is a bit out of order. We have Klavier and Drew, but not Athena or Vera...? And then Kristoph is stuck in between a load of them. They should be added in order of appearence.
Yeah... I'll see what I can do about this. It'll require changing some events, but it shouldn't take TOO long. I just don't have time at the moment, but I'll try to get to it.
One solution at this point is to have the current profiles that are out of order hidden, and add some "fake" profiles - that is, that act as profiles but the sprites in them are never used - in the right order.
calvinball a écrit :The Court Begins music should end once Ema gets on stand, since it's fade introducing a witness (or would be.)
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean? Doesn't the court music still play while a witness is on the stand, right before the testimony? I mean, unless the witness has a leitmotif...
...Damnit, I was mistaken here. Disregard that. Essentially, I thought that the Court Begins music faded out along with the screen, only to play again after the fade in. That was how it worked in one case, but I've checked other canon cases, and it's not a universal rule.
calvinball a écrit :Regarding the testimony startup: the format is: -- Name -- , not - - Name - - , and shouldn't immediately proceed to the first testimony frame. See ED's guide for reference.
Ah, I see. Sorry about that. But how do I fix the proceeding to the next frame problem? If I don't go to the next frame, the testimony .gif eventually repeats itself, and if I go to another frame before the first testimony frame, the name will type itself again, since V6 doesn't have the nifty instant type trick that V5 had.
This is actually something I don't think is covered in many tutorials for some reason. If you open up a v5 native trial in v6, you'll notice that colored text actually has the [instant] tag. You can see its usage in this
image, a v6 native trial.. The 3250 is the timing of the Witness Testimony / Cross-Exam popup (which is the one from E.D's guide
). Once that timer expires, it'll move onto the next frame, which is just the testimony name... typed out instantly. Then you can just let it wait for a click on that frame.Not only can you handle testimonies like that, but questions with buttons for answers can use it so that fast clicking doesn't totally screw the player over. By having two frames withthe same question on it, with a timer of 1 on the former and the instant tag on the latter frame. I'm surprised nobody's made use of it like that.
calvinball a écrit :But around the time we get to Kristoph's testimony, it really... felt like things were being skimmed over, I guess? Franziska's emotional moments also seem a little short. Sort of nebulous claims, and I'm sure they're fine in reality, but... I dunno, I think the testimony would've felt a bit more "omg it's kristoph" if it lasted a bit longer, and Franz's character would be better if her key moments weren't so short and put in sort of... weird places.
I'm not sure I totally understand what you mean. Do you have any ideas about what needs to be different about Franziska's moments?
As I said, it's really subjective, and honestly, I can't place it. Unless somebody else comments on it it's probably not any sort of pressing issue. It just felt like some of these moments came out of nowhere, lasted briefly, and then everything went back to normal. That's about all I can say, really... Not worth changing these all around, it just stuck out a bit.
calvinball a écrit :Possible greyscale for flashbacks? Also, the flashback is very short. Usually we see a couple of frames before (or possibly after, if need be) the "key"/"focus" frame of the flashback.
I'm afraid I have no idea how to grey-scale gifs. I might make a request in the art request thread.
does this pretty efficiently.
oh god i brought this upon myself
calvinball a écrit :Speaking of the testimonies, the two final ones were great (Phoenix's stumped me, and I'm sure it will a few people. Or... I hope it will, anyway) and the first two were effective recaps of 4-4. Kristoph's testimony was definitely pivotal, and the contradictions in the testimony were excuted very well. I just wish there was just one opportunity for the player to really influence its outcome by presenting evidence. At the moment, it lacks a moment where the player can think about what they're doing; the contradictions are presented by basically asking "should I press more." ... I do understand the problems with that, though. A lot of testimony 3's puzzles are memory based, and what's more, based on memory of a trial that isn't even the one being played. I think the only one of Kristoph's contradictions that could be made, relatively easily, into a present / detailed question rather than a "press further" was the one where he claims he was protecting Vera, even though he's admitting to it right at that moment.
Yeah... that was one of the things that bothered me the most as I made the trial. I tried to figure out how to fit just one good present contradiction into the testimony, but I couldn't figure out how to without adding unnecessary details. I considered having a present for the timing of Vera's poisoning "contradiction" by using the trial transcript and allowing the player to keep it, but that would require the player to get something wrong, which seems a tad unethical. I should be able to make the question a little clearer, and if I can think of something reasonable I'll add a choice to the question in that particular press conversation and maybe add the Turnabout Tomorrow style by including penalties somehow.
If I may ask, what exactly would Apollo present as a present contradiction for the "protection" statement that gets added? I thought of using Kristoph's profile, but that would require updating it in the middle of the trial to include information about him being the key witness, and that seems like a cheap way to create a contradiction. Alternatively, I could include in Vera's profile something like "She's on trial again for some reason..." Would that statement be enough to justify a present contradiction?
Alright, time to break out the usual disclaimer. I suck at logic, so please don't... put anything you're not totally sure about into that CE until you get other / better feedback. I'll clarify what I said and make some suggestions for the questions you asked, but... yeah, keep that in mind before you borking break Broken.
The Turnabout Tomorrow-style pressing and the just one present!
were separate suggestions. I think that using both in a CE would make it incredilby convoluted, considering that just pressing for the wrong answer gets you a penalty. The TTom testimony in question has a HUGE amount of contradictions in it when it's compared to the previous testimony of the case. That's why I was reminded of it here - the player mostly pressing, and there are multiple contradictions. Just one simple present will probably not only be easier to implement, but less risky in terms of ruining the testimony and the player's sanity should they get the questions wrong. You may want to play the testimony in question just to get a sense of whether or not it'll even work for Broken, and if it's worth re-structuring the testimony by a significant amount and adding a lot of dialogue to achieve it. It may well work, provided the options for the player are fair, but could also just screw up the whole CE.
Okay, as for your actual question, I hadn't really thought about a specific solution to the "I'm protecting Vera" problem. It's just the contradiction that doesn't require memory of 4-4 to work, and therefore the easiest to provide a fair solution for. I don't think the trial transcript thing was the way to go, no, but just adding something into a profile.. could work? Just adding "the key witness to this trial, Ms. von Karma's relying on his testimony" to Kristoph's initial profile might be one way to do it (not adding it to the profile halfway through the trial, and instead wording it well on the first profile you get of him). The second sentence, about von Karma "relying" on him would draw attention to the fact that he's on the prosecution's side, and thus, against Vera.
As I said before, there is likely to be someone with a better solution to this testimony 3 dilemma, should you even want a solution. It's not at all terrible how it is now, just lacks a bit of interactivity. Even if you can't figure out a way to have a "present" for a contradiction, just changing some of the "should I press onwards" to something more specific (like "What should I ask about?" -> Ask about the suicide plot) would make the player feel more in control.
Don't take any of that as more than some-person-on-the internet's two cents, though