[T] Turnabout in Plain Sight ●

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

Moderators: EN - Forum Moderators, EN - Trial Reviewers

User avatar
Southern Corn
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat May 19, 2018 6:05 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, Bad Jokes

Re: [T] Turnabout in Plain Sight ●

Post by Southern Corn »

I’ll definitely have to check this case out from the sounds of it, then. It sounds quite cool!
Image
Image
User avatar
Gosicrystal
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:54 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: Español, English

Re: [T] Turnabout in Plain Sight ●

Post by Gosicrystal »

The first post has been updated with a simple walkthrough, as requested by Vagrant!

@ Gamer2002, drvonkitty:
Glad you like the new ending! Admittedly, it feels better than the original one. Even if it's just because of Alba's epic leitmotif. =P I'm considering making a locked room mystery next - that one should be fun.

@ DJJ6800
Haha, gotcha with the red herring. Phoenix is indeed bitter about his disbarment, hence his antagonism. Glad you liked the case ^^
User avatar
DWaM
Posts: 1763
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:23 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: The Kingdom of Ellipses

Re: [T] Turnabout in Plain Sight ●

Post by DWaM »

I liked this. Quite a good case from a first-time author. The contradictions were mostly good and easy to understand. The mystery wasn't too convoluted, but still had an intriguing hook to it in the prosecution's initial accusation. Everything came together rather nicely in the end; in particular the court segment in the end.

Still, I had a few things that caught my attention critique-wise:
Spoiler : The Case :
  • Instead of using "?..." or "!..." in sentences, I would advise going with "...?" and "...!" instead. They look better visually. (So, instead of "What could it be?..." you should use "What could it be...?" etc. etc.
  • The contradiction in which Edgeworth points out that the killer couldn't have met up with Steven in the bathroom (Violet's 2nd, I believe?) only works if you know that Steven died at some point roughly after 7:15. However, the autopsy puts the time of death at 6:50-7:20, one could argue that the killer met with Steven a little before 7, and that he ended up dying at around 7:10. We don't know when exactly the tea was served (at least, I don't think so. I can't find the exact time in the testimony evidence). If we knew the tea was served at around 7:15, the contradiction would be a lot more clear.
  • Even without the presence of gloves, couldn't have Violet technically used a rag or whatever she would've had to have used to hold the bottle to erase fingerprints anyway? That would invalidate her alibi almost immediately. And even then, not like she would've ever had to have handled the sugar physically -- all she has to do is hold the bottle and tilt it. There's no reason why sugar would've gotten on her, no?
  • Speaking of the nail thing, it would've been better to just have her demonstrate her then and there the sugar thing instead of showing the doctor's report. After all, without her name on the medical report, Edgeworth should've been able to logically claim it might not necessarily be hers.
  • I wasn't a fan of the evidence that showed Steven intended to commit suicide. After all, maybe he just really wanted to drink that tea, y'know? It's not really evidence of any kind. To tell the truth, I took a random guess as to what evidence I was being asked to present.
  • I wasn't a fan of the end lobby scene where Phoenix exposits how he lost his badge. It doesn't feel like it contributes much to the story? Like, obviously, Edgeworth would want to know, but as a player, it felt pretty unnecessary, especially in terms of the main story being told. You could very well have ended it with a fade to black in which it's implied Phoenix would go on to tell him or something of the sort.
  • Klavier telling Violet about the type of sugar in the bottle should've mattered little in her scheme of things. After all, they'd intentionally planted sugar in the bottle with the poison for the explicit purpose of using that defense, no? I only bring this up because it seemed to be that Violet was saying that Klavier telling her the type of sugar used allowed for her to go down the alibi route, when it shouldn't have affected much.
Overall, though, it was fun! From the screenshots, it did remind me of The Bitter Turnabout, given the characters involved, but I was happy to see it was an entirely different idea.

One more suggestion -- I'd put the link somewhere that's more visible, and in big bold letters. I have to admit the first time I opened the topic I almost started to think the link was removed for whatever reason.
Gamer2002
Posts: 559
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:51 pm

Re: [T] Turnabout in Plain Sight ●

Post by Gamer2002 »

DWaM, regarding your last point.
Spoiler : :
I was the one who pointed the issue with Klavier telling Violet about the sugar. In the original Edgeworth just asked how she knew that the bottle also contained sugar, and Klavier openly handwaved it by telling that he simply shared to the witness details about the crime. Which was coaching a witness to the level that even Manfred von Karma wouldn't do openly, but nobody was bothered about it.

I proposed that Edgeworth should have immediately called Klavier out, or, at least, go ham on him after Violet's escape (the original ending of the trial was also different and had Klavier just disappearing somewhere in the middle of it). Instead, Violet herself calls Klavier out for being an idiot that allowed her to freely talk about things she wasn't supposed to know.
Last edited by Gamer2002 on Fri Feb 15, 2019 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
MedicInDisquise
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:54 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T] Turnabout in Plain Sight ●

Post by MedicInDisquise »

This case is pretty good. It's hard to explain, but I really liked the secondary plot of Wright's disbarment. It adds some conflict between Phoenix and Edgeworth,
Spoiler : :
and seeing Phoenix spill the beans at the end is a satisfying (if not bittersweet) conclusion especially when compared with Violet getting off scotfree for her crimes. The ending is a twist ending that I didn't see coming at all; but in retrospect is foreshadowed pretty well. Everyone felt in character for me, except for Phoenix. Then again, in AJ he seemed pretty bitter about his badge and here it is a much more recent wound, so he's pretty justified in being a grouchy hobo. I especially liked Klavier's character; while Phoenix is quite obviously biased against him and he tries his best to screw over the player, he's not the villain and ends up getting tricked at the end. I ended up pretty sympathetic for him, maybe because of knowing he's not actually responsible for Wright's disbarment. Again, it's all bittersweet and provided a nice, short but emotional story.
Gameplay wise, the puzzles were all fair. The case sorta lacks on the evidence front, but it gets a lot of mileage out of what it has. It's worth nothing that I didn't resort to the walkthrough but once; and that was
Spoiler : :
the timeline contradiction on the second-to-last cross examination. I just sort of forgot about the 15 minute delayed reaction, but that's pretty much my fault.
Thanks for making this case! It was really fun. I also liked the custom art you made; it's a nice touch and it just looks nice.
User avatar
Gosicrystal
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:54 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: Español, English

Re: [T] Turnabout in Plain Sight ●

Post by Gosicrystal »

@DWaM
Thanks for the review! It's an honor to receive this praise from you. Your cases fascinate me. I have read your criticisms, and would like to tell you my view on them.
Spoiler : Criticisms :
* You're not the first one that points out the ellipsis thing. I'm from Spain and here we put the ellipsis after the interrogation or exclamation mark if the sentence has complete meaning, like in this case. Perhaps English handles it differently.
* Steven died at 7:10. Klavier says this in his opening statement. If you think this information is crucial to the contradiction, I can add something like "Was seen dying at 7:10" to his profile in the Court Record.
* While I understand that it would've been nice to have Violet demonstrate her condition right then and there, I like it this way because the absence of her name in the paper helps foreshadow the fact that she has changed her identity.
* Steven drinking that tea like a madman isn't conclusive evidence, but it's not meant to be. It's just a clue that gives Edgeworth's theory more likelihood of being correct. Edgeworth himself admits it isn't the most definitive piece of evidence in legal history. As to you presenting evidence at random, I did highlight in red when Iris testified that he almost choked, along with a "Huh?" sound.
* I thought of cutting to black instead of having Phoenix sum up Zak's trial, but then the end would have been a little abrupt in my opinion. Sure, it's not "necessary" since the player already knows what happened, but it helps give a conclusion to the conflict between Edgeworth and Phoenix, and shows the toll it's taken on the latter. I think just cutting to black would've been more bland and less emotional.
I will make the link to the case more prominent - thanks for pointing that out!

@ MedicInDisquise
Thank you very much! I'm glad you enjoyed it. I don't know what you mean by "the case sorta lacks on the evidence front", though. Can you elaborate?
User avatar
DWaM
Posts: 1763
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:23 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: The Kingdom of Ellipses

Re: [T] Turnabout in Plain Sight ●

Post by DWaM »

Spoiler : Replies, etc. :
Gosicrystal wrote:* Steven died at 7:10. Klavier says this in his opening statement. If you think this information is crucial to the contradiction, I can add something like "Was seen dying at 7:10" to his profile in the Court Record.
Wait, but if Steven dies at 7:10, and if Steven and Violet meet up at "just before 7", then it's actually possible Steven was poisoned right before the meeting, and that there's no contradiction. If Violet walked in at any point after 6:55, that is. And since she never clarifies what "just before 7" means, it's entirely possible.

Of course, that's putting aside the fact it's unlikely that the player would remember what Klavier said in his opening statement.
Gosicrystal wrote:* While I understand that it would've been nice to have Violet demonstrate her condition right then and there, I like it this way because the absence of her name in the paper helps foreshadow the fact that she has changed her identity.
But that still opens the gate of the player maybe thinking "well, what if this report just flat-out isn't hers?" and then trying to find a way to present the report at one of the statements in which she claims she has the condition. Edgeworth himself even points out the lack of a name in the evidence description, drawing attention to it, so...
Gosicrystal wrote:* Steven drinking that tea like a madman isn't conclusive evidence, but it's not meant to be. It's just a clue that gives Edgeworth's theory more likelihood of being correct. Edgeworth himself admits it isn't the most definitive piece of evidence in legal history. As to you presenting evidence at random, I did highlight in red when Iris testified that he almost choked, along with a "Huh?" sound.
There's a difference between foreshadowing and the kind of evidence AA considers evidence. One is narrative, the other is the result of reasoning. Reasoning-wise, the line that goes between "the victim drank their tea in a rush" to "the reason the victim drank their tea in a rush was because they were on a ticking clock and were about to die" is pretty thin, especially when the question presented is not "do you have anything to suggest the victim was aware they were dying of poison at the time," but is "what is the evidence the victim was intending suicide." And even if it's the former, it's -- somewhat ironically -- the one thing Klavier should actually be able to handwave, saying the victim could've very well just really really wanted some tea.
User avatar
MedicInDisquise
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:54 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T] Turnabout in Plain Sight ●

Post by MedicInDisquise »

Gosicrystal wrote: @ MedicInDisquise
Thank you very much! I'm glad you enjoyed it. I don't know what you mean by "the case sorta lacks on the evidence front", though. Can you elaborate?
Sure! It's a a very minor nitpick, honestly, because the case functions fine, the puzzles all work, and as I said you get a lot of mileage out of what you have.
Spoiler : :
Excluding the badge and the 2 testimonies, you have 4 unique pieces of evidence: The autopsy report, the atroquinine jar, the rinsing cup, and Violet's condition. I just felt that there's not a lot of evidence to work with, especially since you only have the Autopsy Report and the Atroquinine jar for the first part (again, excluding the testimony evidence). But, I should emphasize that the case works fine with what it has and it's really fun anyways.
User avatar
Crystalklk
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:59 pm
Spoken languages: English
Contact:

Re: [T] Turnabout in Plain Sight ●

Post by Crystalklk »

Hello! I haven't finished the case yet, but I noticed that Iris's sprites, specifically while she is talking, don't appear to be functioning properly?
I just checked in my own trial editor, and I think the sprite's source is malfunctioning. I just wanted to draw attention to it here, I'm gonna send it to the bug report section in a little bit.
Image
If you notice, her sprite flickers while speaking.
User avatar
Gosicrystal
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:54 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: Español, English

Re: [T] Turnabout in Plain Sight ●

Post by Gosicrystal »

@DWaM
Spoiler : Reply to your latest points :
But that still opens the gate of the player maybe thinking "well, what if this report just flat-out isn't hers?" and then trying to find a way to present the report at one of the statements in which she claims she has the condition. Edgeworth himself even points out the lack of a name in the evidence description, drawing attention to it, so...
If the player wants to test their theory, they can do so at their own risk of presenting wrong evidence. I don't force the player to do anything but press all the statements. When I play cross-examinations, I always press every statement before risking objections. Edgeworth only points out the lack of a name to make sure the foreshadowing doesn't go unnoticed.
There's a difference between foreshadowing and the kind of evidence AA considers evidence. One is narrative, the other is the result of reasoning.
These are not mutually exclusive and can be integrated.
Reasoning-wise, the line that goes between "the victim drank their tea in a rush" to "the reason the victim drank their tea in a rush was because they were on a ticking clock and were about to die" is pretty thin, especially when the question presented is not "do you have anything to suggest the victim was aware they were dying of poison at the time," but is "what is the evidence the victim was intending suicide".
Perhaps, but this isn't much of a problem when the player cannot get penalized for presenting wrong evidence and is given a big hint if they fail.
And even if it's the former, it's -- somewhat ironically -- the one thing Klavier should actually be able to handwave, saying the victim could've very well just really really wanted some tea.
Again, Edegworth doesn't need hard, conclusive evidence at this point. Violet would just dismiss Klavier's handwaving and say that Edgeworth is right.
@Crystalklk
That's weird. I don't see it flickering on my PC, but it does flicker on my smartphone.
Post Reply