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