kwando1313 wrote:Nah, I did it without a walkthrough. It wasn't too bad.
Were a lot of the things you presented (super objections and the like) all figured out? If so congrats because I would consider myself to definitely be able to think logically, but some of the stuff just didn't end up seeming to make much sense.
I did do a few of the super objections without walkthroughs however the majority were (partially) just random guesses (for example when you have a vague idea, or know one object to present and then the other one is just save/guess/load and so forth)
I was a fairness tester and beta-tester on this, and rewrote some of the puzzles to improve fairness. There were some places where I didn't have time to suggest more revisions.
I think there are some hard-but-fair puzzles, and a few absolute gems that are challenging but quite solvable:
Spoiler : For example :
The "four members" of the terrorist group one requires a few borderline bluffs, but the insight is FANTASTIC when you see it. I was able to solve it in testing, and found it tremendously satisfying. Once you see the "general shape" of the solution and the way Peppers could have misdirected you, it becomes a lot easier.
The trap is nasty, though, no denying that. It feels more like a "final puzzle" than an "introduce the villain" puzzle.
Other puzzles had serious issues:
Spoiler : For example :
After you first accuse Peppers, there's a series of puzzles where you have to work out a possible way the crime could have happened, and some require you to visualize the situation in a very specific, and sometimes slightly contrived, way. A few of them have you give answers that later turn out to be wrong anyway. I think part of the problem is that this comp emphasized making a very long case, and so the authors were stretched to the limit to make the confrontation go on.
I liked the final super-objection, but in hindsight, the evidence present is a tad nitpicky.
That said, I think MOST of the puzzles were solid, with only a few pushing towards authorial mind reading.
"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!"
The only thing I felt was truly unfair was the Supra-Objection. The All-Truth thing was great, but the evidence was strict as hell; Peppers and the Grate. Even though straight after that you can point out that the gun and key were put in front of the coat, you can't include either in the Supra-Objection.
The only thing I felt was truly unfair was the Supra-Objection. The All-Truth thing was great, but the evidence was strict as hell; Peppers and the Grate. Even though straight after that you can point out that the gun and key were put in front of the coat, you can't include either in the Supra-Objection.
I agree! Those should be an optional allowance into the Supra...
Ferdielance wrote:I think there are some hard-but-fair puzzles, and a few absolute gems that are challenging but quite solvable:
Spoiler : For example :
The "four members" of the terrorist group one requires a few borderline bluffs, but the insight is FANTASTIC when you see it. I was able to solve it in testing, and found it tremendously satisfying. Once you see the "general shape" of the solution and the way Peppers could have misdirected you, it becomes a lot easier.
The trap is nasty, though, no denying that. It feels more like a "final puzzle" than an "introduce the villain" puzzle.
That was the one I didn't actually have that much difficulty with (although I did initially fall into the other trap where you get extra dialogue from other people, which was actually pretty cool).
Other puzzles had serious issues:
Spoiler : For example :
After you first accuse Peppers, there's a series of puzzles where you have to work out a possible way the crime could have happened, and some require you to visualize the situation in a very specific, and sometimes slightly contrived, way. A few of them have you give answers that later turn out to be wrong anyway. I think part of the problem is that this comp emphasized making a very long case, and so the authors were stretched to the limit to make the confrontation go on.
I liked the final super-objection, but in hindsight, the evidence present is a tad nitpicky.
That said, I think MOST of the puzzles were solid, with only a few pushing towards authorial mind reading.
Some of the actual testimonies had weird things to present. For example, in one testimony, it's like:
Spoiler : For example :
"Why would I want the defendant and victim in the same room together?"
I *did* actually figure out the answer to this was "so they'd kill each other" but had no idea what to present. Presenting both profiles ended up working but it seemed a little weird that that's how you'd do it, since the part of the testimony specifically talks about the defendant and victim in the first place. Rather than actually figuring it out you just present the two profiles he's talking about... it felt like a very cruel "obvious answer" especially when combined with all of the more difficult ones that came before it.
On this matter, what are the creators' thoughts on the difficulty? Also, are the puzzles for the (planned) final part probably going to be of this difficulty (which I personally enjoyed, but I did have to use the walkthrough)? Obviously, I'm just being responsible, and not instead fishing for more information about Part 4 .
Last edited by Zohar the Shiny on Sun Jul 20, 2014 4:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Why would I want the defendant and victim in the same room together?"
I *did* actually figure out the answer to this was "so they'd kill each other" but had no idea what to present. Presenting both profiles ended up working but it seemed a little weird that that's how you'd do it, since the part of the testimony specifically talks about the defendant and victim in the first place. Rather than actually figuring it out you just present the two profiles he's talking about... it felt like a very cruel "obvious answer" especially when combined with all of the more difficult ones that came before it.
Spoiler : :
This was one of the ones I was more worried about being difficult to solve, so I gave (what I believed to be) the most obvious Kristoph hint in the game that almost directly states profiles are the solution.
The difficulty's definitely the worst part of TRev, to me. I'm kind of amazed that I didn't get more complaints about it, but most seem to believe the super-objections are fairly reasonable. I sorta blame that on a general stigma AAO trials had around the time of just overall being way too hard (blame Blackrune), which made it not so unusual to the regulars around here and prevented me from noticing just how crazy I was going with all the special objections and whatnot. (Plus, I also made it so that it was ALWAYS two pieces of evidence, so I think that probably made it easier than your average supers, too.) I felt like difficulty was integral to having a "Never-Ending Turnabout", which was the competition TRev was made for, so... thus it was. Phase 4 was originally almost as nuts as Phase 3 was with difficulty, buuuuuuuut hindsight's 20/20 and all and the rework for it is a bit more elegantly designed.
...
Spoiler : :
Granted, I have no regrets about the all-true supra. That's a trick I'd been wanting to use since the concept was introduced. I'll admit the evidence selection could have been done better or at least provided more options, though.
Man. To think it's been almost two years. No excuse for that kind of laziness.
"Why would I want the defendant and victim in the same room together?"
I *did* actually figure out the answer to this was "so they'd kill each other" but had no idea what to present. Presenting both profiles ended up working but it seemed a little weird that that's how you'd do it, since the part of the testimony specifically talks about the defendant and victim in the first place. Rather than actually figuring it out you just present the two profiles he's talking about... it felt like a very cruel "obvious answer" especially when combined with all of the more difficult ones that came before it.
Spoiler : :
This was one of the ones I was more worried about being difficult to solve, so I gave (what I believed to be) the most obvious Kristoph hint in the game that almost directly states profiles are the solution.
The difficulty's definitely the worst part of TRev, to me. I'm kind of amazed that I didn't get more complaints about it, but most seem to believe the super-objections are fairly reasonable. I sorta blame that on a general stigma AAO trials had around the time of just overall being way too hard (blame Blackrune), which made it not so unusual to the regulars around here and prevented me from noticing just how crazy I was going with all the special objections and whatnot. (Plus, I also made it so that it was ALWAYS two pieces of evidence, so I think that probably made it easier than your average supers, too.) I felt like difficulty was integral to having a "Never-Ending Turnabout", which was the competition TRev was made for, so... thus it was. Phase 4 was originally almost as nuts as Phase 3 was with difficulty, buuuuuuuut hindsight's 20/20 and all and the rework for it is a bit more elegantly designed.
...
Spoiler : :
Granted, I have no regrets about the all-true supra. That's a trick I'd been wanting to use since the concept was introduced. I'll admit the evidence selection could have been done better or at least provided more options, though.
Man. To think it's been almost two years. No excuse for that kind of laziness.
Is phase 4 going to atleast be HARD... I don't want a "Danganronpa chapter 6 trial" pulled for the conclusion.
Spyromed wrote:They should totally do a "DanganRonpa Chapter 6 Ending." That way, we get a sequel. In other words, Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney - Case 7.
Oh, I guess that'd make more sense.
What would really be hilarious is them ending it like 5-4 or DanganRonpa Chapter 5: unfinished until the next case.
.
