[T][CE] A Batty Turnabout ★

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

Moderators: EN - Forum Moderators, EN - Trial Reviewers

User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: [T][CE] A Batty Turnabout ☆

Post by Enthalpy »

Spoiler : CE1 :
It's been established that the court has a photo of the defendant (press conversation on statement 1), but vampires don't appear in photographs. Is presenting that fact on statement 1 supposed to be "wrong"?
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
Tiagofvarela
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:16 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, Portuguese
Location: Portugal

Re: [T][CE] A Batty Turnabout ☆

Post by Tiagofvarela »

Enthalpy wrote:
Spoiler : CE1 :
It's been established that the court has a photo of the defendant (press conversation on statement 1), but vampires don't appear in photographs. Is presenting that fact on statement 1 supposed to be "wrong"?
Spoiler : :
The defendant is on his stand. The conversation does not mean he has a photo. They're just displayed on screen as a nice way of introducing the subject.
However, I understand the confusion. In earlier versions of the trial I specifically went out of my way to state the profiles in the Court Record didn't include pictures, but that came out very strangely with the "*displays profile* we don't actually have a picture, but I'm told her hair is black" thing.
As a result, I will add this very contradiction into the first statement, as depending on your interpretation of how the Court Record works, there is indeed a contradiction here.
A Laggy Turnabout ★
A Batty Turnabout ★
A Tricky Turnabout ★
Upcoming: A Worldly Turnabout, A Courtly Turnabout, A Clumsy Turnabout, A Needy Turnabout
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: [T][CE] A Batty Turnabout ☆

Post by Enthalpy »

Spoiler : Close to the End??? :
When Edgeworth asks, "What doesn't make sense when you assume Mr. Blod committed the crime?", is he talking only about the assumption that Blod committed the crime, or that Blod used the bat? And what would count as committing the crime? I assume that just sending the key up through the window wouldn't count. Would sending the note have counted?
EDIT: Finished the case! Expect a review this weekend.
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
Tiagofvarela
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:16 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, Portuguese
Location: Portugal

Re: [T][CE] A Batty Turnabout ☆

Post by Tiagofvarela »

Enthalpy wrote:
Spoiler : Close to the End??? :
When Edgeworth asks, "What doesn't make sense when you assume Mr. Blod committed the crime?", is he talking only about the assumption that Blod committed the crime, or that Blod used the bat? And what would count as committing the crime? I assume that just sending the key up through the window wouldn't count. Would sending the note have counted?
Spoiler : :
I can clarify the wording into 'murdered the victim'. I hadn't considered other meanings it could be interpreted as.
However, you have drawn my attention to the fact that this may be one of the few prompts that relies entirely on memory without any alternative. I have not heard a single complaint about this particular prompt, so I think it's an easily memorable or otherwise easily deductible one (only two people could have called the police), but I still don't like locking people in like this too much.
It's also a very broad question. If you think of more viable presentable options to "What doesn't make sense when you assume Mr. Blod murdered the victim?", please share them. Even inviable ones are fine, as penalty conversations are always best when they aren't generic.
Enthalpy wrote: EDIT: Finished the case! Expect a review this weekend.
Since you have finished playing through it, I have updated the case to fix a couple of typos and change the wording in the question above (as well as what Athena says immediately before, to ensure the logic she's following is clearer).
A Laggy Turnabout ★
A Batty Turnabout ★
A Tricky Turnabout ★
Upcoming: A Worldly Turnabout, A Courtly Turnabout, A Clumsy Turnabout, A Needy Turnabout
User avatar
Ferdielance
Posts: 778
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:46 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T][CE] A Batty Turnabout ☆

Post by Ferdielance »

This is a very good case. While there are some places where the puzzle logic could be a bit clearer, the use of lots of optional presents and pathways prevents the case from being a repetitive guessing game, which many trials become. It's more like a conversation. I strongly, strongly recommend that casewriters take this more responsive approach, which greatly reduces frustration and turns the prosecutor from a static "answer key" into an active player in the game.
"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
User avatar
Gosicrystal
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:54 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: Español, English

Re: [T][CE] A Batty Turnabout ☆

Post by Gosicrystal »

I agree. Tiago puts a lot of thought and foresight into his prompts and pathways, and I love that. More authors should really make their cases as flexible as Tiago does.
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: [T][CE] A Batty Turnabout ☆

Post by Enthalpy »

Things got busier than I expected, so the review won't be coming out today after all. Within a week, for sure.
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: [T][CE] A Batty Turnabout ☆

Post by Enthalpy »

QA Review: A Batty Turnabout

Image
Even the Yamazaki characters admit it. I'm doomed.
Also, you're missing a comma.
When I decided to take on this request myself, I knew this was a competition winner, but didn't recall which competition it had won. "I Want To Believe," the paranomal intrigue competition. What had I gotten myself into? Find out below!
_____________________________________________________
The format on Check #1 is similar to in my previous reviews.
In [url=http://aceattorney.sparklin.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=380232#p380232]Case featuring and QA[/url], ShadowEdgeworth wrote:They check that it has an overall story and gameplay of astounding quality; it should be really engaging, have interesting contradictions and be really fun.
– The Sparkling Feature Star is given for an aspect that makes your trial stand out even among the featured trials. Getting a Sparkling Feature Star means your trial is pretty much guaranteed to be featured after implementing the changes from check 2, unless it gets a Hollow Star.
+ – The Great Plus means that this aspect makes your good trial great. You don't need a Great Plus in every category, but you should have at least one Great Plus or Sparkling Feature Star for the trial to be featured.
✓✓ – The Double Check Mark means that this aspect is good enough for a featured trial. Almost everything in this area works solidly, but it lacks a "wow" factor. An otherwise great aspect that requires some non-trivial tweaking falls in here.
– The Single Check Mark means that this aspect can be good enough for a featured trial, but requires not major, but non-trivial modifications to make it truly solid. You must not have any Single Check Marks in order to pass Check 2.
– The Hollow Star marks a problem that can't be fixed without a major rewrite. A trial must not have any Hollow Stars in order to pass Check 1. If you get one, don't be discouraged! Remember that a Hollow Star is only a star that hasn't been filled yet. It's something you can work on when improving this trial or writing your next one, and once you've worked on it, go for another QA review!

Unlike the other marks, the Hollow Star and Single Check Mark only talk about how large of a rewrite is needed to be featured-trial good, not how good that part of the trial is.
Spoiler : Check #1: Here Be Spoilers! :
Contradictions and Cross-Examinations:

This case is not a conventional mystery. While the gameplay mechanics are all the same, the case moves and is meant to move in circles of confusion that slowly are moving the truth, but you can't be sure until the end. The case is meant to be, well, batty. And the basic premise works perfectly for that! This is a case that really should be a Perfect Closed Room type.

That said, the risk with this type of case is to confuse the player to the point that they lose their bearings completely or can't keep up with the trial's internal logic. That, unfortunately, is what happened to me. I'll break this down in detail.

Cross-examination one contains the most technical problems. After pressing all statements in cross-examination one, you are supposed to present the book "Vampiratic!" on the statement that the defendant is a vampire because vampires do not need to kill their victims. This breaks several of the rules outlined in Ferdielance and my guide on Cross-Examinations and Contradictions, to the case's detriment. All of these should be interpreted in light of the following problem:

07. Athena and Edgeworth's explanation of the contradiction is unclear. I had to write this section of the review three times because I thought the contradiction was one thing in draft one, another thing in draft two, then in the current draft, I relized that I couldn't decide which was actually right.

Edgeworth gets in a brief line about how the defendant evidently did not drink the victim's blood, so feeding could not have been the motive, and then Athena starts talking about how vampires don't need to kill to feed. So, what is the actual contradiction? I can't tell, so I'm going to assume both of them.

02. The press conversations frequently waste frames. The press conversations in this cross-examination drag on far too long. The jokes work well enough for this to be only a minor irritation at first, but on a second playthrough, it becomes tedious. This is worst on the statement "He said she had locked herself in her room. The police broke into it and found her... dead." By my count, this single conversation is at least 60 frames, and most of it is spent on jokes.
04. The case is inconsistent. Athena says that even if the defendant was a vampire who intended to drink the victim's blood, he wouldn't necessarily have killed her. But Edgeworth specifically said in another press statement that the bite was so shallow that the defendant may not have intended to kill. Why does Edgeworth not call us on this?
06a. The evidence doesn't actually contradict the witness's statement. The contradiction is with the defendant's motive. Even though the statement calls the defendant a vampire, the detective never mentions the motive here. And the evidence never mentions the part about vampires that actually contradicts the motive!
06b. There's a far better line to present this at. We know the defendant thinks the victim is a vampire! That's the whole point of this testimony. Have the player present the contradiction on the line about there being blood everywhere.
08a. This contradiction requires the players to have knowledge of vampires that they may not have. I can't tolerate horror, so I don't know much about vampires beyond the absolute basics. Vampires can get the blood they need without killing their victims? That was new to me.
08b. The players need to assume that the victim did not intend to murder the victim, which is a shaky suspicion at best. Now that I try to write it, I admit that I have no idea what the prosecution thought the defendant's plan was. Drink blood, be full, I get that. Did he have some plan to not have Peaky denounce him as a vampire who drank her blood to her father? For all I know, there was some long-standing arrangement where the Sharpes knew that Blod was a vampire but allowed him to drink their blood in exchange for his service.
08c. The players need to assume that if the defendant drank the victim's blood, there wouldn't be blood sprayed all over the place. How much blood do vampires need to drink? Can they stop when they've had enough? I don't know!

Cross-examination #2 works fairly well! My one criticism is that the press conversations continue to run too long with jokes.

I disliked on the "unravel the bird trick" sequence afterwards, but I suspect that I would like it better, now that I know how to approach this. While no step seems implausible, each is guesswork. I don't see a way around this, and I recommend having Athena give herself a "pep talk" to describe her strategy. This should make it clear to the player that they are looking for a possibility built of plausible steps, i.e., more Yamazaki than Takumi. Even on a second playthrough, I had to step away from the game for a minute to reorient myself, after this part.
Athena declares the body discovery report proves "it." What does Athena mean, and what does that have to do with the state of the cage? Do we have some reason, besides the witness testimony, to believe the cage really has been empty lately?
During Edgeworth's objections about the bird going "back," where is back?
Naming the person who we think sent the note is not a reason to believe somebody else sent the note.

Cross-examination #3 works, but I would appreciate a clearer statement from Perky about her memory. "There's little I remember" gets lost in all the other hazy statements she makes, and it's not specific enough to remember. I spent a very long time on this CE the first time, due to that! Because Athena explicitly says that she's going to update Perky's profile, I'm willing to back off on this one.

Cross-examination four on doesn't have as many technical problems, but here is where my mind truly started to break when I played this the first time. The problem here is deep: we are asked only to show reason to doubt the witness, and we are intended to present that the defendant should have testified to the trick he used to send the key to her room, if he really did do it. However, the trial has reinforced incessantly that all of these witnesses are too "batty" to be trusted. The defendant testified to being a vampire who drank the victim's blood because he thought it would help his employer and, assuming the defense's own theory is correct, lied in his testimony about the bat... which is precisely the point where the current witness disagrees with him! And of course, the current witness is a girl claiming to constantly be possessed by spirits causing her to lose control of her own body, and she may or may not be possessed by the victim. With a case this "batty," I assumed that I needed something much more definitive than one shady witness contradicting a witness who was a shade less shady.

It's quite telling that after we point out this "problem," the witness says our problem is invalid, and we end up agreeing with her. I highly recommend you rewrite the co-counsel and evidence present conversations so that Athena is looking for something that will drag the trial forward.

I really admire the subsequent attempts to give the player room to reason their own way to the correct answer afterwards, but I found the vagueness of "this revelation" in the final prompt confusing...I side with the judge here. "I'm still trying to figure out what this "revelation" is." I should add that I was still puzzled over CE4, which didn't help.

All in all, this was rough. The premise is a good one, but the execution leads to confusion far above what the case actually aims for.

...I'm somewhat exhausted after writing all that and the list of typos, so the rest of this will be briefer.

Dialogue and Characterization: +

Given what this case is trying to be, it was never counting on tragic pasts, show-stealing comic characters, or deep examinations of the human soul. Continuing the vampire theme, these characters are more batty bats than people with pasts we sympathetically explore, as in most canon AA games. And given what the case is trying to be, the plan goes off without a hitch.

The characters all hit the mark, escalating the madness. A possibly psychic detective who becomes brutal when discussing blood. A defendant who is possibly a vampire and is willing to say absolutely anything, with no trace of contradiction. The family patriarch who is long-winded and doesn't quite seem to grasp the seriousness of the situation, or proper decorum. The characters who bring the madness to its heights are most definitely Peaky and Perky. (I'll add for future: Perky is the limit on how far suggestive dialogue on trials can go.) I just don't have words for those two. After all the build-up, I think that not having a character who was as eccentric, but just regular-crazy, with Peaky was the right move to make. Anything else would have stretched the joke too much.

Really and truly, well done.

Narrative:

Let me repeat myself:
This case is not a conventional mystery. While the gameplay mechanics are all the same, the case moves and is meant to move in circles of confusion that slowly are moving the truth, but you can't be sure until the end. The case is meant to be, well, batty.

Wow, does this case succeed in doing that! I can see why this case won the "I Want to Believe" competition, as it's perfect for it. Though given the disposition of the witnesses, this also would have been an excellent fit to the trolling competition of several years back. In a way I didn't think possible, that adds to the case.

This is complete and utter insanity in a way that, once you look past the problems in the CEs, hasn't been done on AA before, and hits the mark in just about every regard. The premise is batty, the large-scale moves of the logic is batty, and the characters are batty. This honestly makes the whale case from DD-5 look tame. This is a niche that we've needed filled for a long time, and I am truly glad to see this case exist!
Spoiler : Check #2: Here Be Spoilers! :
Presentation and Bugs:
There's a flicker effect for Athena's enraged desk slam, for instance, when asking if Edgeworth thinks she can't read. This may be an AAO problem, but check if it's on your end.

Writing and Characterization:
The second sentence of the attorney's badge description sounds awkward.
Several of the CE press conversations and dialogue immediately upon presenting evidence are so filled with jokes that they become annoying on a second playthrough.

Proofreading and Clarification:
COMMAS COMMAS COMMAS

F96: Remove the comma between "large" and "stone"
In Edgeworth's profile, "boss'" to "boss's"
F245: What's the joke with the judge's "travesty" and his robes?
F188: Remove the comma between "delicate" and "ears"
F226,227: The capitalization of "WHAT" doesn't seem right here.
F254: case, I
F313: Again the possessive of a word ending with an s is both an apostrophe and an s.
F273: I don't think "for" is the preposition you want.
F289: Change "speech's" to "speech has." That informal contraction does not read well.
F361: was -> were
F378: day, but
F380: "has much more relevancy" sounds awkward.
F402: police, I
F450: it, and
F458: "see this on" is an awkward way to describe a photograph.
F1786: him -> her
F485: in -> at
F498: has -> have
F521: Run-on.
F2622: Try moving the double quotation marks to the entire word "vampire's"
F608: Remove the comma in "Oh well"
The semicolon in the description of the Small Parchment is unneeded.
F684: instantiate -> substantiate
F695: witness, we
F2634: weather -> whether
F992: Capitalize "your" to "Your"
F720: Remove the comma between "enough" and "and"
F725: "native from" is awkward.
F736: lead -> led
F817: blanket, but
F879: an -> a
F845: blocked, and
F874: was -> were; You'll need to apply the same change to the CE statement. Is using "police" in the singular common outside of the United States?
F885: true, but
F925: man, so
F937: "last warning," do you mean you'd kill her, or
F985: shouting, if
F983: was -> were
F1000: to be
F1005: descending into
F1020: "resilient,"
F1084: I hear -> I've heard
F1085: key, and
F1092: Why is the judge asking us to present concrete to the court?
F1050: me -> I
F1072: to the Court
F1058: "disconcert my scrutiny" sounds awkward
F1065: witness' -> witness's
F1110: account. This -> account, this
F1136: A piece of paper doesn't contain fingerprints. Reword.
F1342: mistress' -> mistress's
F1353: this, too
F1453: investigation, one
F1352: sure, but
F1489: performance, this
F1693: consideration, things
F1599: easily have been
F1655: sure, but
F1674: The pause here is awkwardly long.
F2673: Vladimir, my
F1739: over, the
F1783: Remove the comma here.
F1793: night, and
F1794: on -> in
F1909: lied -> lay
F1910: moving, it
F1925: coincidences, but
F1954: another, and
F106: witness' -> witness's
F1997: something, because
F2000: Missing timer?
During CE4, statement 1, add a comma after "morning"
During CE4, statement 4, add a comma after "myself"
F2112: there, but
F2115: them, I
During the added statement, Vladimir's name is spelled incorrectly.
F2159: sudden, I
F2161: shock, it
F2163: body, which
F2188: move, I
F2196: Remove the comma.
F2245: EVERY thing -> EVERYTHING
F2279: MAYBE you have the wrong nametag here? I can't tell.
F2312: a -> and
F2315: tell,
F2327: bat, even
F2335: speculation, but
F2352: possible, but
F2382: days, someone
F2387: bats, of
F2390: thereafter, I
F2398: culprit, and
F2515: Remove the comma.
F2430: for, anyway?
F2457: jog, or

Sprites and Graphics:
Consider changing Phoenix's profile to have the same profile as the others.
You have the "ghost court" problem, where you lack sprites when the gallery is speaking.
Athena seems to lose a few centimeters when her Mood Matrix animation finishes. See the frame right after CE2, starting with, "Please read the body discovery report"
...These Viola sprite edits are amazing.

Music and Sound Effects:
F9,37: Perhaps add a sound effect to Athena clicking the phone? CR should have the effect you need.
I forget the frame number, but I believe there was a "huh" sound effect missing when Athena was asking a question during the examination of the tower room.
Sound effects felt a bit lacking during Perky's CE.

Differences from AA Games (Optional):
Any use of orange text should be accompanied by the key sound effect. See Edgeworth's opening statement.
You should have the music die at the same time as the characters make a successful objection. Athena objects before the music dies, at least in CE1.

Logic and Gameplay:
The window information took me a full minute to figure out. A picture wold be very helpful.
Everything else is in described in great detail during the first part of the review.
_____________________________________________________
Spoiler : VERDICT :
★ The case is good enough to be featured. Please make the requested changes.
Well, this case was a mind-bender. At least there's nothing else fundamentally genre-breaking for me to QA... Right?
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
Tiagofvarela
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:16 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, Portuguese
Location: Portugal

Re: [T][CE] A Batty Turnabout ☆

Post by Tiagofvarela »

I have a different competition entry to finish onto finality, so I won't fix anything in the trial itself for now, but there are a number of things which I need to get out of my system, so I'll reply to those now.
Enthalpy wrote:
Spoiler : Check #1: Here Be Spoilers! :
Contradictions and Cross-Examinations:

This case is not a conventional mystery. While the gameplay mechanics are all the same, the case moves and is meant to move in circles of confusion that slowly are moving the truth, but you can't be sure until the end. The case is meant to be, well, batty. And the basic premise works perfectly for that! This is a case that really should be a Perfect Closed Room type.

That said, the risk with this type of case is to confuse the player to the point that they lose their bearings completely or can't keep up with the trial's internal logic. That, unfortunately, is what happened to me. I'll break this down in detail.

Cross-examination one contains the most technical problems. After pressing all statements in cross-examination one, you are supposed to present the book "Vampiratic!" on the statement that the defendant is a vampire because vampires do not need to kill their victims.

I am actually surprised you had trouble with the cross-examination at all. Let's explain it all using text from the case, yes?
The 'Contradiction': "If the defendant truly is a vampire... why did he not drink the victim's blood?" (Edgeworth explaining what the defence tried to say)
The Pieces of the Puzzle: "the defendant, a vampire,"(the only statement that is somehow connected to the puzzle) + "Details the typical vampire mythos: Drinks blood"(Vampiratic! or common horror film knowledge) +"Nobody drank her blood, obviously."(Peaky's profile after press) = !!!
The Hints: "Finding a contradiction between this book and the "vampire"'s actions?"

Next let's try to understand what confused you. Perhaps the statements Athena made right after Edgeworth's: "You say he's a vampire but... vampires don't just kill people. They feed off a person's blood. I've heard that they don't even need to kill them."
These statements are all founded on the original one: "The defendant didn't drink the victim's blood." Athena is elaborating by saying that 'If he were a vampire, it'd make no sense for him to just kill a person (without feeding off of him). The last "don't even need to kill them" is further speculation just to show that it makes even less sense to kill. Even if he had fed, would he have needed to kill?
How can I clarify this? Honestly, I only see the need to amend "You say he's a vampire but... vampires don't just kill people" into "You say he's a vampire but... vampires don't just kill people for no reason."

One possible objection is: "But this isn't really a contradiction! What guarantees a vampire has to drink blood?"
I accept this. And I will amend the co-counsel into containing "show the defendant did not act like a vampire.".
Keep in mind, though, that "Finding a contradiction between this book and the "vampire"'s actions?" already fulfils this role, as there is indeed a discrepancy between what's in the book and what the 'vampire' did.

Next, I'll explain how I follow the rules (if I do follow them).


This breaks several of the rules outlined in Ferdielance and my guide on Cross-Examinations and Contradictions, to the case's detriment. All of these should be interpreted in light of the following problem:

07. Athena and Edgeworth's explanation of the contradiction is unclear. I had to write this section of the review three times because I thought the contradiction was one thing in draft one, another thing in draft two, then in the current draft, I relized that I couldn't decide which was actually right.

Edgeworth gets in a brief line about how the defendant evidently did not drink the victim's blood, so feeding could not have been the motive, and then Athena starts talking about how vampires don't need to kill to feed. So, what is the actual contradiction? I can't tell, so I'm going to assume both of them.
Because you did not understand the contradiction, I clearly broke this one, but I do not know how to make it clearer. The contradiction is: "If the defendant is a vampire, why did he not drink the victim's blood?"
As I've explained above, that's what the co-counsel points you towards looking.

The second one (don't need to kill to feed) also counts, but is not one you could really present and is irrelevant to the contradiction in CE1.

You can point out the contradiction by presenting Peaky (whose profile says nobody drank her blood) or the Vampiratic! (which says vampires drink blood). It also accepts the Autopsy Report and Vladimir Blood if you've pressed the correct statements (that is, the ones which point out nobody drank her blood and update Peaky's Profile.
There is a slight chance that a player might present Peaky's updated profile at that statement and fail. I thought it'd be unlikely because the co-counsel will tell you to press more until you're ready to find the contradiction, but I might implement a fail-safe that has Athena think to herself that she should press more before moving on instead of redirecting to the generic objection.


02. The press conversations frequently waste frames. The press conversations in this cross-examination drag on far too long. The jokes work well enough for this to be only a minor irritation at first, but on a second playthrough, it becomes tedious. This is worst on the statement "He said she had locked herself in her room. The police broke into it and found her... dead." By my count, this single conversation is at least 60 frames, and most of it is spent on jokes.
One can consider my trial thus far to be comedy trials. I will not bend and remove joke I've written. This is also why I try to make my contradictions as flexible as possible and try to encompass many ways for a person to point out the contradictions. Information will be lost, sure, but my contradictions only rarely rely on memory.
The statement you point out has Edgeworth object to it the first time you press it. From there on, it is half the size.

04. The case is inconsistent. Athena says that even if the defendant was a vampire who intended to drink the victim's blood, he wouldn't necessarily have killed her. But Edgeworth specifically said in another press statement that the bite was so shallow that the defendant may not have intended to kill. Why does Edgeworth not call us on this?
First, because Edgeworth just wants to be done with the vampire nonsense. There is no way he would ever stand against Athena's objection claiming that the defendant isn't a vampire.
Secondly, Athena's statement there is just thinking aloud. The actual contradiction remains "If he were a vampire, he should have drunk the victim's blood." Which he didn't. That "Even if he had drunk the blood, he wouldn't have needed to kill" is a hypothetical objection to a hypothetical scenario. You have heavily misjudged the meaning and relevance of it.

06a. The evidence doesn't actually contradict the witness's statement. The contradiction is with the defendant's motive. Even though the statement calls the defendant a vampire, the detective never mentions the motive here. And the evidence never mentions the part about vampires that actually contradicts the motive!
The contradiction isn't with the motive per se, but, even the actual 'contradiction' is not necessarily a contradiction. I have mended the testimony in the manner described above:
I will amend the co-counsel into containing "show the defendant did not act like a vampire.".
Keep in mind, though, that "Finding a contradiction between this book and the "vampire"'s actions?" already fulfils this role, as there is indeed a discrepancy between what's in the book and what the 'vampire' did.

06b. There's a far better line to present this at. We know the defendant thinks the victim is a vampire! That's the whole point of this testimony. Have the player present the contradiction on the line about there being blood everywhere.
Given the actual contradiction, him being a sloppy drinker (leaving blood everywhere) doesn't mean that he didn't drink.
But I don't really mind making Athena start to present her case from here, I guess? I'm not too keen on it, though.

08a. This contradiction requires the players to have knowledge of vampires that they may not have. I can't tolerate horror, so I don't know much about vampires beyond the absolute basics. Vampires can get the blood they need without killing their victims? That was new to me.
Which is why the Vampiratic! was implemented. It gives all the necessary knowledge: That is, "vampires drink blood".
08b. The players need to assume that the victim did not intend to murder the victim, which is a shaky suspicion at best. Now that I try to write it, I admit that I have no idea what the prosecution thought the defendant's plan was. Drink blood, be full, I get that. Did he have some plan to not have Peaky denounce him as a vampire who drank her blood to her father? For all I know, there was some long-standing arrangement where the Sharpes knew that Blod was a vampire but allowed him to drink their blood in exchange for his service.
The player need assume no such thing.
The "prosecution" (detective)'s case was that the defendant bit the victim, killed her, and ran away into the night. It made no mention of feeding directly (because Edgeworth had proof to the contrary), which is what we need to point out.

08c. The players need to assume that if the defendant drank the victim's blood, there wouldn't be blood sprayed all over the place. How much blood do vampires need to drink? Can they stop when they've had enough? I don't know!
No. They need to do just the opposite. They need to not assume that.

Cross-examination #2 works fairly well! My one criticism is that the press conversations continue to run too long with jokes.

I disliked on the "unravel the bird trick" sequence afterwards, but I suspect that I would like it better, now that I know how to approach this. While no step seems implausible, each is guesswork. I don't see a way around this, and I recommend having Athena give herself a "pep talk" to describe her strategy. This should make it clear to the player that they are looking for a possibility built of plausible steps, i.e., more Yamazaki than Takumi. Even on a second playthrough, I had to step away from the game for a minute to reorient myself, after this part.
Well, yes. The best I can do is remove the penalties. This part really is all about throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks, but that has more or less been here the whole trial. If you connect the cage to the window or the cage to the insects, you've practically solved the whole thing.
Athena declares the body discovery report proves "it." What does Athena mean, and what does that have to do with the state of the cage? Do we have some reason, besides the witness testimony, to believe the cage really has been empty lately?
Vladimir mentions the cage (because he's trying to get Athena to give up), but Athena's talking with Edgeworth, who said "...I remind you that the window was locked from the inside.", which is what she reacted to. I'll clarify 'it' into 'the window was open', but whether you fail or get it right Edgeworth explains because you it doesn't matter if you followed or not.
In short, you're right and the case will always advance at this point regardless of what Vladimir says.

During Edgeworth's objections about the bird going "back," where is back?
Clarified into 'the cage' and 'the person who sent it'.
Naming the person who we think sent the note is not a reason to believe somebody else sent the note.
Remember that this whole section is about theories and possibilities. Not one of these claims has proof. It's all about coming up with an explanation that actually works. The judge's question as been reworded into "And why do you think so?" because the original one really did seem like he was asking for proof.

Cross-examination #3 works, but I would appreciate a clearer statement from Perky about her memory. "There's little I remember" gets lost in all the other hazy statements she makes, and it's not specific enough to remember. I spent a very long time on this CE the first time, due to that! Because Athena explicitly says that she's going to update Perky's profile, I'm willing to back off on this one.
I added that statement specifically for this reason.

Cross-examination four on doesn't have as many technical problems, but here is where my mind truly started to break when I played this the first time. The problem here is deep: we are asked only to show reason to doubt the witness, and we are intended to present that the defendant should have testified to the trick he used to send the key to her room, if he really did do it. However, the trial has reinforced incessantly that all of these witnesses are too "batty" to be trusted. The defendant testified to being a vampire who drank the victim's blood because he thought it would help his employer and, assuming the defense's own theory is correct, lied in his testimony about the bat... which is precisely the point where the current witness disagrees with him! And of course, the current witness is a girl claiming to constantly be possessed by spirits causing her to lose control of her own body, and she may or may not be possessed by the victim. With a case this "batty," I assumed that I needed something much more definitive than one shady witness contradicting a witness who was a shade less shady.

It's quite telling that after we point out this "problem," the witness says our problem is invalid, and we end up agreeing with her. I highly recommend you rewrite the co-counsel and evidence present conversations so that Athena is looking for something that will drag the trial forward.
I've already discussed this before with other people. Tell me. If Vladimir's profile said "Lost the key.", would you have presented it in this testimony? Depending on your answer, I might have to rework the co-counsel conversation, which already says we just need a single reason to doubt her testimony.
Also note that the Body Discovery Report says: "two individuals went out to meet them. They described the situation: The key to
the top floor room had gone missing,", which is the other way to present this contradiction.


I really admire the subsequent attempts to give the player room to reason their own way to the correct answer afterwards, but I found the vagueness of "this revelation" in the final prompt confusing...I side with the judge here. "I'm still trying to figure out what this "revelation" is." I should add that I was still puzzled over CE4, which didn't help.
That's why the penalty explains the revelation. If you followed the logic, you shouldn't ever see the penalty conversation, so it's fine.
Athena: "Since the bird is a bat, what does that change...?"


All in all, this was rough. The premise is a good one, but the execution leads to confusion far above what the case actually aims for.

...I'm somewhat exhausted after writing all that and the list of typos, so the rest of this will be briefer.
A Laggy Turnabout ★
A Batty Turnabout ★
A Tricky Turnabout ★
Upcoming: A Worldly Turnabout, A Courtly Turnabout, A Clumsy Turnabout, A Needy Turnabout
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: [T][CE] A Batty Turnabout ☆

Post by Enthalpy »

Spoiler : :
Regarding Cross-Examination 1:
That explanation helped! I had completely missed the part where Edgeworth said that the victim's blood had definitely not been sucked. I suspect I missed it due to a combination of "The more verbose a cross-examination, the more likely that critical details will vanish in the flood of wordy frames as the player clicks faster and faster to get through the blasted thing.", my not even thinking to check the profiles, and the way Edgeworth says this being easy to miss. All you have to is ignore the word "simply" in "As has been numerously stated, she simply bled out" and the frame where Edgeworth says "...No."

That being so, the fix here is significantly simpler than I thought:
* Cut down on how lengthy these press conversations are
* Have Edgeworth be more explicit about her blood not being sucked, i.e., "...No. If her blood really had been drawn, the autopsy would have noted it."
* In the post-CE conversation, have Athena make explicit that the whole basis for this vampire accusation is that the fatla wound sure looks like a vampire bite... but that doesn't match the vampire M.O. at all

Now, for the rest.
* If Vladimir's profile says he "lost the key," I likely would have presented it but had "but she's just going to call him a liar" in the back of my head.
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
Tiagofvarela
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:16 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, Portuguese
Location: Portugal

Re: [T][CE] A Batty Turnabout ☆

Post by Tiagofvarela »

Replies in bold.
Enthalpy wrote:
Spoiler : :
Regarding Cross-Examination 1:
That explanation helped! I had completely missed the part where Edgeworth said that the victim's blood had definitely not been sucked. I suspect I missed it due to a combination of "The more verbose a cross-examination, the more likely that critical details will vanish in the flood of wordy frames as the player clicks faster and faster to get through the blasted thing.", my not even thinking to check the profiles, and the way Edgeworth says this being easy to miss. All you have to is ignore the word "simply" in "As has been numerously stated, she simply bled out" and the frame where Edgeworth says "...No."

That being so, the fix here is significantly simpler than I thought:
* Cut down on how lengthy these press conversations are
I've already mentioned some of these are shorter the second time around. I've amended them so that on a second press they retain only the important information.
* Have Edgeworth be more explicit about her blood not being sucked, i.e., "...No. If her blood really had been drawn, the autopsy would have noted it."
I don't think I can be clearer. Athena asks if the blood was sucked, and he answers no. In this press, there are three mentions that nobody drank her blood. I've explicitly added "Nobody sucked her blood. Do you even need to ask?" to his answer.
* In the post-CE conversation, have Athena make explicit that the whole basis for this vampire accusation is that the fatla wound sure looks like a vampire bite... but that doesn't match the vampire M.O. at all
I think that would make it too easy. And as I've already said, nobody that played this case bar you had any issues on CE1 at all. Press says nobody drank his blood. Peaky's profile says that. Press the next statement and the detective says they did. Vampiratic says vampires drink blood. I accept presenting pretty much anything on the statements that you press to get this information and that say he's a bat.
"She BLED OUT" Accepts vampiratic, which says vampires drink blood.
"she had key to the room with her" When pressed, the detective mentions Vladimir fed from his victim, so this statement Accepts updated Peaky profile, which says nobody drank her blood.
"the defendant, a vampire" Accepts the above, for the same reasons, plus the autopsy which says she died from exsanguination/loss of blood (in case the player interprets this as nobody drinking her blood), and Vladimir in case the player wants to point out he isn't a vampire after hearing the previous information.

I've also added a failsafe for when you present the correct evidence before pressing everything.


Now, for the rest.
* If Vladimir's profile says he "lost the key," I likely would have presented it but had "but she's just going to call him a liar" in the back of my head.
Good. Then this'll have to do. I think it fits the trial in how to move forward you need to go back.
Enthalpy wrote:
Spoiler : Check #2: Here Be Spoilers! :
Presentation and Bugs:
There's a flicker effect for Athena's enraged desk slam, for instance, when asking if Edgeworth thinks she can't read. This may be an AAO problem, but check if it's on your end.
There might be one, but I wouldn't know how to fix it.

Writing and Characterization:
The second sentence of the attorney's badge description sounds awkward.
I... have no idea how or why it sounds awkward.
Several of the CE press conversations and dialogue immediately upon presenting evidence are so filled with jokes that they become annoying on a second playthrough.
If I can't write a mystery, dialogue is the only thing I have. Dialogue is also the only reason I read Visual Novels of all kinds. The more the better. Not everyone agrees with this, but it's my preferred way of making a trial. It's also why I try to make sure that all prompts are solvable even if you remember nothing of what happened previously just by failing and getting a hint or by reading all the evidence and profile. It's almost always direct contradictions.

Sprites and Graphics:
Consider changing Phoenix's profile to have the same profile as the others.
Done.
You have the "ghost court" problem, where you lack sprites when the gallery is speaking.
This was fixed shortly after you played it.
Athena seems to lose a few centimeters when her Mood Matrix animation finishes. See the frame right after CE2, starting with, "Please read the body discovery report"
I can't really fix these. Animating sprites is not within my capabilities. At least, not any more. It's been ages since I did the Viola edits.
...These Viola sprite edits are amazing.

Music and Sound Effects:
F9,37: Perhaps add a sound effect to Athena clicking the phone? CR should have the effect you need.
Added.
I forget the frame number, but I believe there was a "huh" sound effect missing when Athena was asking a question during the examination of the tower room.
My usage of the 'huh' is mostly for surprising revelations. If it's just a question, then I don't mind leaving it.
Sound effects felt a bit lacking during Perky's CE.
Perky is less explosive that other witnesses, and the lawyers are too exasperated to have explosive reactions at this point, so that might be why. I went through and added a couple more, but I don't see the need for anything else.

Differences from AA Games (Optional):
Any use of orange text should be accompanied by the key sound effect. See Edgeworth's opening statement.
You should have the music die at the same time as the characters make a successful objection. Athena objects before the music dies, at least in CE1.
I don't mind these. If I don't have to change them, I won't.

Logic and Gameplay:
The window information took me a full minute to figure out. A picture wold be very helpful.
Everything else is in described in great detail during the first part of the review.
This trial didn't include any 'not enough budget jokes', but if it did, it would have been here.
I added a picture, but I'm not sure if it'll help, and that's as far as my skills go.


Proofreading and Clarification:
COMMAS COMMAS COMMAS
Spoiler : :
F96: Remove the comma between "large" and "stone"
Done.
In Edgeworth's profile, "boss'" to "boss's"
I went and reviewed grammar rules, and yeah. I agree with this. I'll keep it in mind.
F245: What's the joke with the judge's "travesty" and his robes?
That's a joke that got changed. It's a 'travesti'/'travesty' joke. Amended it a bit.
F188: Remove the comma between "delicate" and "ears"
I put it there on purpose because she's emphasising each word. How to better represent that?
F226,227: The capitalization of "WHAT" doesn't seem right here.
I have no better idea to emphasise the word.
F254: case, I
F313: Again the possessive of a word ending with an s is both an apostrophe and an s.
In the style I follow, it is only so when the word is singular. I've applied this to the instances I found.
F273: I don't think "for" is the preposition you want.
Removed it altogether.
F289: Change "speech's" to "speech has." That informal contraction does not read well.
Done.
F361: was -> were
Done.
F378: day, but
Done.
F380: "has much more relevancy" sounds awkward.
Done.
F402: police, I
Done.
F450: it, and
Done.
F458: "see this on" is an awkward way to describe a photograph.
Done.
F1786: him -> her
Done.
F485: in -> at
Done.
F498: has -> have
Done.
F521: Run-on.
Done.
F2622: Try moving the double quotation marks to the entire word "vampire's"
Er... Sure.
F608: Remove the comma in "Oh well"
Done.
The semicolon in the description of the Small Parchment is unneeded.
Done.
F684: instantiate -> substantiate
Done.
F695: witness, we
Done.
F2634: weather -> whether
Done.
F992: Capitalize "your" to "Your"
Done.
F720: Remove the comma between "enough" and "and"
Done.
F725: "native from" is awkward.
Altered, though maybe it isn't fixed.
F736: lead -> led
Done.
F817: blanket, but
Done.
F879: an -> a
This depends on how you pronounce the word. Most of my h's are silent and I know I'm not the only one, so I'll keep this as is.
F845: blocked, and
Done.
F874: was -> were; You'll need to apply the same change to the CE statement. Is using "police" in the singular common outside of the United States?
I think it's just me. I'll change it to plural when I find instances of this.
F885: true, but
Done.
F925: man, so
Done.
F937: "last warning," do you mean you'd kill her, or
I've done this, but the comma is outside the quotation marks.
F985: shouting, if
Done.
F983: was -> were
Done.
F1000: to be
I omitted the 'be' purposefully, but I don't mind adding it if it makes it clearer. I'd rather not, though.
F1005: descending into
Done.
F1020: "resilient,"
Done.
F1084: I hear -> I've heard
Doesn't fit in the textbox, and I don't think it's wrong as is.
F1085: key, and
Done.
F1092: Why is the judge asking us to present concrete to the court?
'Concrete' means solid. 'Concrete evidence'. I turned it into a word joke with 'Evidence that is concrete as concrete'.
F1050: me -> I
Done.
F1072: to the Court
Done.
F1058: "disconcert my scrutiny" sounds awkward
Fixed.
F1065: witness' -> witness's
Fixed.
F1110: account. This -> account, this
Done.
F1136: A piece of paper doesn't contain fingerprints. Reword.
Done.
F1342: mistress' -> mistress's
Fixed.
F1353: this, too
Done.
F1453: investigation, one
Done.
F1352: sure, but
Done.
F1489: performance, this
I don't like a comma here, but I don't care that much. Done.
F1693: consideration, things
Done.
F1599: easily have been
Done.
F1655: sure, but
Done.
F1674: The pause here is awkwardly long.
He takes a sip before finishing the sentence. I can't guarantee the animation plays properly, but it kind of works on my end.
F2673: Vladimir, my
Done.
F1739: over, the
Done.
F1783: Remove the comma here.
Done.
F1793: night, and
Done.
F1794: on -> in
Done.
F1909: lied -> lay
Goodness gracious this verb is messy. Done.
F1910: moving, it
Done.
F1925: coincidences, but
Done.
F1954: another, and
Done.
F106: witness' -> witness's
Done.
F1997: something, because
Done.
F2000: Missing timer?
Not really, but having a timer there also works. I like doing super fast transitions, but an online engine like this one prefers pauses. That's fine. I've added some.
During CE4, statement 1, add a comma after "morning"
Done.
During CE4, statement 4, add a comma after "myself"
Done.
F2112: there, but
Done.
F2115: them, I
Done.
During the added statement, Vladimir's name is spelled incorrectly.
Done.
F2159: sudden, I
Done.
F2161: shock, it
Done.
F2163: body, which
Done.
F2188: move, I
Done.
F2196: Remove the comma.
Done.
F2245: EVERY thing -> EVERYTHING
Sure.
F2279: MAYBE you have the wrong nametag here? I can't tell.
Kind of. I left it like that because it was transitioning back and forth and was unclear. Them saying their names is done on purpose to clarify this where the nametag might not.
F2312: a -> and
Done.
F2315: tell,
Done.
F2327: bat, even
Done.
F2335: speculation, but
Done.
F2352: possible, but
Done.
F2382: days, someone
Done.
F2387: bats, of
Done.
F2390: thereafter, I
Done.
F2398: culprit, and
Done.
F2515: Remove the comma.
This one has no comma.
F2430: for, anyway?
Done.
F2457: jog, or
Oof. Finally! I've implemented the requested changes where I thought they would fit. The ones I didn't implement I explicitly mention above.
If I absolutely need to implement them in order for the trial to be featured, then I will. I write for myself, but that part is already past. Now I'm writing to have other people read it, and perhaps they know better than I.
A Laggy Turnabout ★
A Batty Turnabout ★
A Tricky Turnabout ★
Upcoming: A Worldly Turnabout, A Courtly Turnabout, A Clumsy Turnabout, A Needy Turnabout
User avatar
cesar26100
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:54 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English-Ingles,Español-Spanish

Re: [T][CE] A Batty Turnabout ☆

Post by cesar26100 »

It seems like there's a bug that makes it impossible to progress.
Spoiler : Kind of spoilers :
After the first CE you're supposed to present Carmine's profile in the "Who looks guilty?" prompt, but his profile isn't added in the Court Records.
♂ + ♂ = ♥
♀ + ♀ = ♥
♀ + ♂ = ♥
Love should be genderless.
If you agree, please add this to your signature.
User avatar
Tiagofvarela
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:16 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, Portuguese
Location: Portugal

Re: [T][CE] A Batty Turnabout ☆

Post by Tiagofvarela »

cesar26100 wrote:It seems like there's a bug that makes it impossible to progress.
Spoiler : Kind of spoilers :
After the first CE you're supposed to present Carmine's profile in the "Who looks guilty?" prompt, but his profile isn't added in the Court Records.
I'm a muppet. This is a bug I added with the last update. Fixed! And thanks.
A Laggy Turnabout ★
A Batty Turnabout ★
A Tricky Turnabout ★
Upcoming: A Worldly Turnabout, A Courtly Turnabout, A Clumsy Turnabout, A Needy Turnabout
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: [T][CE] A Batty Turnabout ☆

Post by Enthalpy »

Ooh, nice! I have a (long-standing) QA review to finish first, but I'll give this a replay when I'm done with that.
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: [T][CE] A Batty Turnabout ★

Post by Enthalpy »

Tiagofvarela wrote:I'm done. It's over. I refuse to continue working on this.
Also an accurate description of me about this case. Tiag and I have done a lot of behind the scenes work on this case in the last week.

It's now featured, congratulations!
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
Post Reply