Spoiler : Things to praise :
1. I love how it started humorous, but got suddenly dark in the end. I like a bit of both things in my mystery stories, and this one handled it well.
2. Very good music. High quality, good to listen, appropriate for each moment, touching... So good!
3. Excellent use of graphics/interface! The Thought Route in particular was top-notch. It looks and feels quite professional.
4. Well played with Hurte's rebuttal part! It's fair to do what you did because the player can get out of the CE without penalizing themselves to death if they are cautious enough - which is what I like about cross-examinations that look daunting but can be completed by pressing everything. It's mildly devilish, but fair.
2. Very good music. High quality, good to listen, appropriate for each moment, touching... So good!
3. Excellent use of graphics/interface! The Thought Route in particular was top-notch. It looks and feels quite professional.
4. Well played with Hurte's rebuttal part! It's fair to do what you did because the player can get out of the CE without penalizing themselves to death if they are cautious enough - which is what I like about cross-examinations that look daunting but can be completed by pressing everything. It's mildly devilish, but fair.
Spoiler : Things to complain about :
1. I don't wholly like the idea of forcing the player to lose on purpose... It's like a line that should never be crossed, in my opinion. Or maybe it's a grey area. I don't know, but I always frown upon cases that expect the player to lose. It sort of makes sense in this story, but... yeah.
2. When you are asked who can confirm that the cell phone was only there around the time of the crime (right after finding a contradiction in De Killer's first CE), presenting Larry Butz should not issue a penalty. I thought the court could just call him for a quick question. I understand that you don't want the story to go that way, but at the very least it shouldn't penalize the player for making a reasonable assumption.
3. I can't remember, but apparently Halling said there's a key to the backdoor and only he has access to it. This is important late on the trial, but without nothing mentioning this in the court record, it feels unfair. I know many authors like to expect players to remember small details from early on to use later on, but this makes it very frustrating for the player if they don't remember. It's one of those things I would personally never use in my cases.
4. So small a complaint, it may be nitpicking: I would've preferred if the Thought Route had sticked to the official games and issued no penalties for choosing the wrong options. It's a personal preference of mine - I like to almost blindly speculate in this thought process rather than doing flawless choosing. It's more fun for me.
2. When you are asked who can confirm that the cell phone was only there around the time of the crime (right after finding a contradiction in De Killer's first CE), presenting Larry Butz should not issue a penalty. I thought the court could just call him for a quick question. I understand that you don't want the story to go that way, but at the very least it shouldn't penalize the player for making a reasonable assumption.
3. I can't remember, but apparently Halling said there's a key to the backdoor and only he has access to it. This is important late on the trial, but without nothing mentioning this in the court record, it feels unfair. I know many authors like to expect players to remember small details from early on to use later on, but this makes it very frustrating for the player if they don't remember. It's one of those things I would personally never use in my cases.
4. So small a complaint, it may be nitpicking: I would've preferred if the Thought Route had sticked to the official games and issued no penalties for choosing the wrong options. It's a personal preference of mine - I like to almost blindly speculate in this thought process rather than doing flawless choosing. It's more fun for me.