[T]Turnabout in Cargo ☆○○○○

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

Moderators: EN - Forum Moderators, EN - Trial Reviewers

Post Reply
Sajaki
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:31 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, Limited Deutsche

[T]Turnabout in Cargo ☆○○○○

Post by Sajaki »

[T] Turnabout in Cargo ●○○○○
This case is the first out of my 5 case game I'm planning on making. Turnabout in Cargo reboots the series as it ignores the main series events and is basically creating it's own personal Ace Attorney timeline.

Trial Former:http://aaonline.fr/player.php?trial_id=97958

Trial Latter: http://aaonline.fr/player.php?trial_id=99049
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: [T]Turnabout in Cargo ●○○○○

Post by Enthalpy »

☆ This case is pending a QA inspection to be featured.

This should take less than a week.
[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]Turnabout in Cargo ☆○○○○

Post by Enthalpy »

QA Review: Turnabout in Cargo

Image
Something tells me the answer is no. That something is not the script.
I was surprised when I got a request to QA such a recent case, and I was looking forward to this one. Cases by new authors are wild cards. I've seen some new authors who are overambitious and some new authors who are very good. Where does this case end up? Read the review, and let's find out.
_____________________________________________________
The format on Check #1 is similar to in my Normal review. The narrative section blends tightly with the other sections, and in the interests of not overwhelming you, I think it's best to skip that section.
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:

The first testimony has Gumshoe trying to explain the facts of the case. However, every piece of information that Gumshoe provides has been in the Court Record since the start of the defense lobby conversation. As I explain here, this is not a good use of a detective testimony.

Some of the rules of cross-examinations are broken, but this isn't the main problem.
Rule 1 is usually followed, but it is subtly broken in Trial Latter. The judge is not clear about what the witness is supposed to testify about. Context suggests the witness is supposed to present a reason why he can't be the killer, but the judge calls for his "testimony" generally. By itself, that means he is being asked to testify about an event. In the next testimony, one character points out that the witness giving it has poor credibility, but the court simply ignores this problem. The judge should present a stronger reason to hear the testimony of a witness with poor credibility.
Rule 2 is followed - good there.
Rule 3 is not followed. There are simply too many "press all to continue" cross-examinations. By too many, I mean four out of seven.
Rule 4 is also not followed. While there are no inconsistencies, there are a number of points where the characters need to explain in more detail or ask more questions. The premise of this crime is: "An elderly basketball player, a detective, and a doctor with orange skin are moving cargo at a dockyard... Then, a female college student comes up." You need more background information to explain this. Why are these people moving cargo together? Why was the victim attacked with two weapons?
Rules 5-9 is followed. Each testimony has a clear purpose. Again, good job here.
Rule 10 is unfortunately not satisfied, as the contradictions are all very simple.

The biggest problem is that although most of these cross-examinations are designed to supply tension, they do not succeed. For instance, Payne can threaten to end the trial after the first cross-examination, but the case against the defendant is currently so weak that it does not feel like the case is that bleak. Similarly, I am not that worried after Furio's testimony because I am distracted wondering what he was doing at a dockyard. Sadly, no tension means most of these cross-examinations don't work very well.

Tension is a tricky thing to get right, and I think a tutorial on this subject is in order. I can elaborate on this, if you'd like.

Dialogue and Characterization:

This case "ignores the main series events and is basically creating it's own personal Ace Attorney timeline," but it isn't clear to me whether that extends to ignoring the characters' personalities as well, and if so, what their personalities are.

Let's look at Furio Tigre. In this timeline, he is a doctor. Is going to medical school something that T&T's Furio Tigre would do? No. However, this Furio still comes roaring into the courtroom, frightening Phoenix and the judge. He is supposed to still have a Brooklyn accent. So why did this character go to medical school? He seems similar enough to the canon Furio that he wouldn't want to be a doctor. This Furio has a "rulebook" for himself, which he gives the court almost as soon as he takes the stand. What sort of person has a rulebook like that? Not canon Furio, but not your version of Furio either. I'm just left confused. I would encourage you to use original sprites for this, unless you really want Furio for some reason.

Dahlia has a similar problem. The judge is still protective of Dahlia, but her lines indicate a different voice than canon Dahlia. Canon Dahlia would never use a legal phrase like "invasion of privacy." I want to judge whether or not this sounds right for your Dahlia, but she speaks so little that I can't get a feel for her. The lines she does speak are generic. If you changed Dahlia's sprites for those of any original character, it still works out exactly the same. I genuinely don't understand why you used Dahlia for this.

The take-home point is that good characters have clear, consistent personalities that show up in the way they say their lines. Anybody you know has such a personality, and this is what makes Ace Attorney characters so enjoyable. Unfortunately, you lack this.
Spoiler : Check #2: Here Be Spoilers! :
Not performed.
_____________________________________________________
Spoiler : VERDICT :
☆ The QA inspection is complete. This case is not good enough to be featured. Sorry!

Sajaki gets points for ambition in going for a QA review so early, but the game is not up to QA standards. I perceive two overarching problems.

First, the characters and the circumstances of the crime need more fleshing out. Why are a doctor and a basketball player moving cargo at a dockyard? What kind of person is Furio Tigre, that he becomes a doctor and hands out his personal rulebook about when he wears gloves? Who is Dahlia Hawthorne in this universe? Why did Furio choose to drug and frame this basketball player? I don't know the answers, and those are crucial questions for any good case to answer.

Second, the attempts to add tension, while commendable, don't work. I highly encourage you to take your favorite case from the first game and replay the section from the defense lobby to the end of the first cross-examination. See how those cases add tension and take notes. Do you see how the canon games have longer press conversations? What extra things are they doing in those frames that lengthen the trial and, more importantly, add tension? Use what you learn for your own trial.

I encourage you to ask for feedback again once those problems are addressed.
[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