[T] Two Sides of the Same Turnabout ★

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

Moderators: EN - Forum Moderators, EN - Trial Reviewers

User avatar
WhiteZekrom
Posts: 378
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:33 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T] Two Sides of the Same Turnabout ☆

Post by WhiteZekrom »

Spoiler : Heavy spoilers :
I'm also stuck during the first rebuttal against Helene-Titania.
User avatar
Calvinball
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:28 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: Out of town; will be back!

Re: [T] Two Sides of the Same Turnabout ☆

Post by Calvinball »

@CloudRed1988: I may be able to help. Can you describe what the trouble is in a little more detail? My memory on what the nature of that section is is a little foggy.
The score is still Q to 12. Shirley Homes avatar by my Invisible Friend. They're an awesome artist!
ImageImage

Image

Image
A huge thanks to my Invisible Friend for this AMAZING Shirley Homes art!

Shirley Homes
Image

Connie Harper
Image
A big thanks to gotMLK7 for this Shirley Homes and Connie Harper art. He is an awesome artist!
User avatar
Bad Player
Posts: 7228
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: American
Location: Under a bridge

Re: [T] Two Sides of the Same Turnabout ☆

Post by Bad Player »

@CloudRed:
Spoiler : :
Almost there...!

The answer is in one of the four "traces" when you press one of the statements.

Henry made a careless mistake when committing the crime. You don't actually have definitive proof in the court record that the trace exists--but it's your only shot, so you need to go for it!

Think back to what Helene said right before the rebuttal. Due to a certain thing that Henry did, normally, a certain other thing should have happened. But it didn't. So to prevent that certain other thing from happening, Henry must have done a certain action, which left the traces that he needed.
Spoiler : One more small hint :
If you just can't figure out what that certain thing is, think about Oberon's and Regina's murders--what was similar between them, and then what diverged.
@WhiteZekrom:
Spoiler : :
No diversions here--go right for the kill, and prove she's Titania!

So the "You can't prove I'm Titania" press convo and the co-council convo are the in-game hints you should be paying attention to.
User avatar
Evo
Posts: 1844
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 12:30 pm
Spoken languages: Deutsch, English

Re: [T] Two Sides of the Same Turnabout ☆

Post by Evo »

Two Sides of the Same Turnabout
Two checks of the same QA review

Image Image
Welcome to the world of Blackrune and Bad Player.
Check 1
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.
Check 1 is for the general enjoyability of your trial. In my reviews, I'll summarize my opinions on what aspects of your trial stood out to me the most, and assign one of the following symbols to them:

– The Sparkling Feature Star is given for an aspect that is so amazing it 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 – although a Sparkling Feature Star will very likely motivate me to be more lenient with Hollow Stars.
+ – The Great Plus means that this aspect is one of the strengths of your trial, something that makes your trial interesting, enjoyable or memorable, something that makes your good trial great. You absolutely don't need a Great Plus in every category, but you should have some for the trial to be featured.
– The Quality Check Mark means that this aspect is good enough for a featured trial and any problems can be solved without a major rewrite. Note that I will only list something that got a Quality Check Mark in my review if I have something more important to say about it than "Alright! Good job!".
– 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, however, 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!

(Note that I build my opinion and decide on my verdict before using any symbols. They are only a way to express and organize my opinion.)
Spoiler : Check 1 – MAJOR SPOILERS! :
Something that stood out to me that I'm not sure where to put is the distance between "Helene" and the player. Despite controlling her actions, the player doesn't really have access to her whole thought process. There's this moment where you she has to prove how she as Titania murdered Regina. You can see how Henry forces her do that in order to shoot down the motive he suggested, but there's nothing in her thoughts to show the struggle of having to explain the murder she committed herself, instead this is all shown through outside clues. There's also this moment where she says she's figured out the locked room while the player is probably still completely stumped on how the locked room could have happened. And then there's the segment where you play as Henry, creating further distance. Of course, none of this can really be changed. In a "the protagonist did it" case, I suppose there simply has to be a certain distance between the player and the protagonist. While it felt a bit weird at times to be kind-of-but-not-really playing as "Helene", I'm not asking you to change any of this. I just wanted to mention it since it might be interesting to you.

- Characters
Henry, Titania/"Helene" and Regina I found interesting, but not outstanding. Mint was a nice quirky witness fitting in the universe of AAO locked rooms. I didn't find Ianson or Smatic particularly interesting, but then, I suppose they don't need to be.

+ - General presentation
This case is clearly the work of perfectionists. Look how little there is under the presentation, music, graphics and proofreading headings in check 2.
The custom graphics and music are chosen and used very well. The music especially helps the atmosphere and the epic feeling when you figure out the mysteries.

+ - Story and theme
The "two sides of the same coin" theme is brought up in many different and clever ways. I like the philosophical discussions with Regina especially.
The flashbacks are chosen and integrated very well. The reverse with the theme, enhances the obverse and allows for new kinds of puzzles and twists (Titania getting the apartment key during a flashback and then bringing it up in the trial stood out to me here.)
I also like the story of the identity theft and the victim's relatives' obsession with catching her.

Mystery and twists
Both crimes include some clever tricks. However, what's especially great about these mysteries is how they're solved. There are some great puzzles, set up in just the right order to allow the player to come up with the solutions almost on their own. Also, I have to commend the originality here: integrating the attorney's badge, Charley the plant and flashbacks into the puzzle.
And then there's the twists. Helene=Titania is mindblowing and wonderfully foreshadowed, giving a "how didn't I see this earlier" feeling especially on the second playthrough. Also, it's amazing how the entire trial was created by Henry and Oberon just to catch Helene. Forcing her to prove she killed Regina to avoid being convicted for Oberon's murder is just genius.

On BP's request: "amazing" "perfection" "fantabulistic"
Check 2
In [url=http://aceattorney.sparklin.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=380232#p380232]Case featuring and QA[/url], ShadowEdgeworth wrote:They check for issues that you need to fix, such as bugs, spelling mistakes, oddly used music tracks, etc. They list these issues in their inspection reports.
Check 2 is for all the minor things that can easily be fixed, but help make your trial as good as possible. Don't be discouraged by seeing only flaws of your trial listed here – that's what this section is for, and every trial will have something listed here in its first QA review.

For details on the individual sections, check this thread.


Presentation and bugs
Spoiler : :
Obverse former
  • Frame 398: Helene’s sprite is talking while she is thinking.
  • Frame 836: Missing space after “person”.
  • Frames 1375-1377: Four-liner. Remove the line break at the end of frame 1375.
Obverse latter
  • Frame 192: Missing wait timer.
Writing and characterization
Spoiler : :
None.
Proofreading and clarification
Spoiler : :
Obverse former
  • Frame 448: “understand” -> “understanding”
  • Frame 653: “there” -> “There”
  • Frames 769-788: The tense in Helene's explanation should be more consistent.
Obverse latter
  • Frame 170: Missing a period at the end.
  • Frame 182: “THe" -> “The”
  • Frame 939: “made” -> “make”
Sprites and graphics
Spoiler : :
General
  • Is there any reason why some “Ask player to point an area” prompts display the respective picture on the top screen (e.g. Obverse latter 190) and some don’t (e.g. Obverse former 2350)? (Never mind if this was intentional.)
Music and sound effects
Spoiler : :
General
  • The penalty sound effect should be playing at the end of the frame when the penalty takes effect, not at the start.
Obverse former
  • Frame 2157: Missing penalty sound effect.
Obverse latter
  • Frame 258: Missing penalty sound effect.
  • Frame 916: This could use a sound effect.
Logic and gameplay
Spoiler : :
Obverse former
  • Frame 294: This could use some elaboration on why that doesn’t work.
  • CE #1: I’m not sure why pointing out the premeditated contradiction is necessary to prompt the statement about “she lay in wait” from an in-story point of view.
  • CE #1: Nothing in the medical report says when Helene was drugged with chloroform. This doesn't really contradict Helene lying in wait at the crime scene later unless it’s clear that she was out at the same time she was at the crime scene.
  • CE #2: The plant doesn’t really contradict the fact Oberon had been on a trip. I mean, if you go on a trip, but your plant requires daily watering, of course you’d get someone to water it, right? Maybe you could add a statement to the testimony about “There’s no reason to visit an empty apartment” or something – that being mentioned in a press conversation isn’t really enough in my opinion, since you’re objecting to the statement, not the press conversation.
  • Frame 825: Why does Victim’s Key + Henry work, but Spare Key + Henry doesn’t? Of course, Henry watering the plant would mean he had a key to the crime scene, but how is the player supposed to guess which of the two it was?
  • Frame 1202: All other wrong options redirect you to frame 1065 so you get the opportunity to ask about someone else, so I’d say this one should too.
  • CE #4: While the body being moved is indeed a problem, I don’t see how it really contradicts “They took her out with a single blow to the head!” (frame 1508). This could use some clarification like rewording the statement to make it contradict the evidence, explaining how the statement contradicts the evidence (if it does and I just didn’t see the contradiction) or hinting in a press / co-counsel conversation that this isn’t supposed to be a contradiction.
Obverse latter
  • Frame 1306: Why don’t you get the regular game over with an option to retry here? (Never mind if this was intentional.)
Note how I didn't find anything in the entire Reverse.


Verdict
Spoiler : :
This is, in my opinion, one of the best trials on this site, so anything else would just be ridiculous.

★ The case is good enough to be featured. Please make the requested changes.
User avatar
Calvinball
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:28 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: Out of town; will be back!

Re: [T] Two Sides of the Same Turnabout ☆

Post by Calvinball »

Congrats, Bad Player, Blackrune! This truly is a stellar case, and it's got one of the best mysteries I've ever seen. Definitely deserving of being Featured.
The score is still Q to 12. Shirley Homes avatar by my Invisible Friend. They're an awesome artist!
ImageImage

Image

Image
A huge thanks to my Invisible Friend for this AMAZING Shirley Homes art!

Shirley Homes
Image

Connie Harper
Image
A big thanks to gotMLK7 for this Shirley Homes and Connie Harper art. He is an awesome artist!
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: [T] Two Sides of the Same Turnabout ☆

Post by Enthalpy »

Congratulations! Truly well-deserved.
[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
Bad Player
Posts: 7228
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: American
Location: Under a bridge

Re: [T] Two Sides of the Same Turnabout ☆

Post by Bad Player »

This is the stuff me and Rune disagree with
Evolina deLuna wrote:Logic and gameplay
Spoiler : :
Obverse former
  • CE #1: I’m not sure why pointing out the premeditated contradiction is necessary to prompt the statement about “she lay in wait” from an in-story point of view. There isn't really an in-story reason... but there isn't really an in-story reason why he can't, either :P This is just the way Ianson decided to testify. Out-of-story, it makes sure the player does things in the right order. Since it's not that big a deal in-story, and relatively important out-of-story...
  • CE #2: The plant doesn’t really contradict the fact Oberon had been on a trip. I mean, if you go on a trip, but your plant requires daily watering, of course you’d get someone to water it, right? Maybe you could add a statement to the testimony about “There’s no reason to visit an empty apartment” or something – that being mentioned in a press conversation isn’t really enough in my opinion, since you’re objecting to the statement, not the press conversation. Well, getting someone to water the plant is an assumption you're making. There's nothing in the game up to that point to suggest Oberon did that. We also feel it does contradict the statement itself as it stands. Looking at what we know (and not making any assumptions), if Oberon had gone on that trip, the plant would've died. So the not-dead plant contradicts Oberon trying to show pictures from the trip he went on. So you're not just objecting to the press conversation (which we also think provides enough of a hint, especially with the red herring added statement that used to be at the end of this testimony removed). If you have any other suggestions, we're open... but the big thing is that there's literally no in-story reason for Mint to say something like "There's no reason to visit an empty apartment" in her testimony.
  • CE #4: While the body being moved is indeed a problem, I don’t see how it really contradicts “They took her out with a single blow to the head!” (frame 1508). This could use some clarification like rewording the statement to make it contradict the evidence, explaining how the statement contradicts the evidence (if it does and I just didn’t see the contradiction) or hinting in a press / co-counsel conversation that this isn’t supposed to be a contradiction. It's because this isn't the 'primary' statement that the player is 'supposed' to object to. That's "The murderer set fire to the collection, and then killed Regina amongst the flames!" which contradicts just fine. While "They took her out with a single blow to the head!" isn't directly contradictory and isn't the primary solution, we felt that if the player presented the bloodstains to that statement, they most likely had the right idea, and so the contradiction should go through, rather than forcing them to present it at the previous statement even though they already had the answer.
Obverse latter
  • Frame 1306: Why don’t you get the regular game over with an option to retry here? (Never mind if this was intentional.) Because this is a full alternate end~ Henry realizes that despite all the excuses he and Oberon had come up with, he's nothing more than a petty murderer, just like Titania. So while he COULD use his out to get a slap on the wrist, he doesn't deserve it, and takes the full punishment for what he's done. (Plus it gives the player agency/choice... even if they don't realize it at the time.) The difference is that with other game overs, the player lost their life. But here they don't--in fact, if the player tries to give something besides the tape, Henry doesn't actually present it.
Note how I didn't find anything in the entire Reverse.
User avatar
Evo
Posts: 1844
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 12:30 pm
Spoken languages: Deutsch, English

Re: [T] Two Sides of the Same Turnabout ☆

Post by Evo »

Bad Player wrote:This is the stuff me and Rune disagree with
Evolina deLuna wrote:Logic and gameplay
Spoiler : :
Obverse former
  • CE #1: I’m not sure why pointing out the premeditated contradiction is necessary to prompt the statement about “she lay in wait” from an in-story point of view. There isn't really an in-story reason... but there isn't really an in-story reason why he can't, either :P This is just the way Ianson decided to testify. Out-of-story, it makes sure the player does things in the right order. Since it's not that big a deal in-story, and relatively important out-of-story...
    Well, normally adding something to your testimony doesn't happen without a reason. But since it isn't really a big deal, if there's no easy way to change it, I'll let it slide.
  • CE #2: The plant doesn’t really contradict the fact Oberon had been on a trip. I mean, if you go on a trip, but your plant requires daily watering, of course you’d get someone to water it, right? Maybe you could add a statement to the testimony about “There’s no reason to visit an empty apartment” or something – that being mentioned in a press conversation isn’t really enough in my opinion, since you’re objecting to the statement, not the press conversation. Well, getting someone to water the plant is an assumption you're making. There's nothing in the game up to that point to suggest Oberon did that. We also feel it does contradict the statement itself as it stands. Looking at what we know (and not making any assumptions), if Oberon had gone on that trip, the plant would've died. So the not-dead plant contradicts Oberon trying to show pictures from the trip he went on. So you're not just objecting to the press conversation (which we also think provides enough of a hint, especially with the red herring added statement that used to be at the end of this testimony removed). If you have any other suggestions, we're open... but the big thing is that there's literally no in-story reason for Mint to say something like "There's no reason to visit an empty apartment" in her testimony. Getting someone to water the plant is a very reasonable assumption for the player to make, IMO. Imagine if it were a cat, not a plant. Would you really say "He couldn't have been on a trip ... because his cat didn't starve"? As for in-story reasons for Mint to say that in her testimony ... When she says something along the lines of "there's no reason to visit an empty apartment" in the press conversation, Helene could think "Is there a problem with what she just said?" or have her add that to the testimony.
  • CE #4: While the body being moved is indeed a problem, I don’t see how it really contradicts “They took her out with a single blow to the head!” (frame 1508). This could use some clarification like rewording the statement to make it contradict the evidence, explaining how the statement contradicts the evidence (if it does and I just didn’t see the contradiction) or hinting in a press / co-counsel conversation that this isn’t supposed to be a contradiction. It's because this isn't the 'primary' statement that the player is 'supposed' to object to. That's "The murderer set fire to the collection, and then killed Regina amongst the flames!" which contradicts just fine. While "They took her out with a single blow to the head!" isn't directly contradictory and isn't the primary solution, we felt that if the player presented the bloodstains to that statement, they most likely had the right idea, and so the contradiction should go through, rather than forcing them to present it at the previous statement even though they already had the answer. OK, my mistake.
Obverse latter
  • Frame 1306: Why don’t you get the regular game over with an option to retry here? (Never mind if this was intentional.) Because this is a full alternate end~ Henry realizes that despite all the excuses he and Oberon had come up with, he's nothing more than a petty murderer, just like Titania. So while he COULD use his out to get a slap on the wrist, he doesn't deserve it, and takes the full punishment for what he's done. (Plus it gives the player agency/choice... even if they don't realize it at the time.) The difference is that with other game overs, the player lost their life. But here they don't--in fact, if the player tries to give something besides the tape, Henry doesn't actually present it. This was intentional, so never mind then.
Note how I didn't find anything in the entire Reverse.
Answers in purple.
User avatar
Blackrune
Posts: 3805
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:11 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, German, Japanese
Location: The Submarine

Re: [T] Two Sides of the Same Turnabout ☆

Post by Blackrune »

Evolina deLuna wrote:
Bad Player wrote:This is the stuff me and Rune disagree with
Evolina deLuna wrote:Logic and gameplay
Spoiler : :
Obverse former
[*]CE #2: The plant doesn’t really contradict the fact Oberon had been on a trip. I mean, if you go on a trip, but your plant requires daily watering, of course you’d get someone to water it, right? Maybe you could add a statement to the testimony about “There’s no reason to visit an empty apartment” or something – that being mentioned in a press conversation isn’t really enough in my opinion, since you’re objecting to the statement, not the press conversation. Well, getting someone to water the plant is an assumption you're making. There's nothing in the game up to that point to suggest Oberon did that. We also feel it does contradict the statement itself as it stands. Looking at what we know (and not making any assumptions), if Oberon had gone on that trip, the plant would've died. So the not-dead plant contradicts Oberon trying to show pictures from the trip he went on. So you're not just objecting to the press conversation (which we also think provides enough of a hint, especially with the red herring added statement that used to be at the end of this testimony removed). If you have any other suggestions, we're open... but the big thing is that there's literally no in-story reason for Mint to say something like "There's no reason to visit an empty apartment" in her testimony. Getting someone to water the plant is a very reasonable assumption for the player to make, IMO. Imagine if it were a cat, not a plant. Would you really say "He couldn't have been on a trip ... because his cat didn't starve"? As for in-story reasons for Mint to say that in her testimony ... When she says something along the lines of "there's no reason to visit an empty apartment" in the press conversation, Helene could think "Is there a problem with what she just said?" or have her add that to the testimony.
Well, the problem with adding that as a statement is... the player would look for 'a reason why somebody visited the apartment' if that's what they're objecting to instead. That would not fit at all with what they're supposed to do after the testimony - they're supposed to work out a theory still with the assumption that nobody visited the apartment and the plant did actually wilt. The fact that somebody DID visit to water the plant is something that's only revealed after that. So I feel like having Helene object to "no reason to visit an empty apartment" would just be too misleading/disruptive for the next bit. If we were to make a more clear statement, it would have to be something that suggests 'nobody visited the apartment during that week'. I think it's already pretty clearly hinted at and any more might make it too obvious, but if you think it's not good enough we're still open to other suggestions. I considered adding more to Helene's thoughts, but that'd still only be press conversation stuff. The reason something like that would be problematic as a new statement is because Mint has no reason to say it - she does not even know if it's true. (and it isn't. And Henry knows that. So yeah...)
Note how I didn't find anything in the entire Reverse.
Answers in purple.
Another red reply.
User avatar
Evo
Posts: 1844
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 12:30 pm
Spoken languages: Deutsch, English

Re: [T] Two Sides of the Same Turnabout ☆

Post by Evo »

Spoiler : :
Ooh. Looks like this is another misunderstanding. Sorry.
If the player is supposed to assume that Oberon would let his plant die, then the contradiction is probably as good as it can get. In that case, there's a a clear contradiction between Oberon going on a trip and the plant's state, which Helene then explains with there being a new one. You're right that changing the contradiction wouldn't fit with Helene's explanation here.
The problem is that, to me, the assumption that Oberon would let his plant die goes a bit against common sense. Which is probably where my confusion about this CE comes from - when I presented the plant at the testimony, my thoughts were "Who took care of it while Oberon was away?" and not "Why isn't it wilted?". The former isn't a clear contradiction, the latter is.
So ... is there any way to make sure the player assumes Oberon would let his plant die?
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: [T] Two Sides of the Same Turnabout ☆

Post by Enthalpy »

Spoiler : Chiming In :
Might I suggest hinting in the press conversation co-counsel conversation to suggest that you can get by with a way to change the facts of the case? For example, add the frame: (I'll need to bring every important-looking fact of this case out in the open.)

If the player doesn't assume somebody watered the plant, some logic as before. If they do make that assumption, the fact that somebody had to enter the room to water the plant is important, and they can present the plant to bring that fact out.
EDIT: BP's thought below was what I meant. Fixed.
[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
Bad Player
Posts: 7228
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: American
Location: Under a bridge

Re: [T] Two Sides of the Same Turnabout ☆

Post by Bad Player »

Spoiler : :
Like Rune alluded to, another problem with getting too explicit with it during Mint's testimony is that it doesn't make sense for Henry to not speak up. So if more explicit hints are given, they need to be in Helene's thoughts, not the explicit testimony statements.

As such, I'm fine with Enth's suggestion. (Although... I'm not entirely sure how well a line like that fits in with the press convo for that statement. It might fit better in Helene's 'co-counsel' thoughts.)
User avatar
Evo
Posts: 1844
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 12:30 pm
Spoken languages: Deutsch, English

Re: [T] Two Sides of the Same Turnabout ☆

Post by Evo »

Enthalpy wrote:
Spoiler : Chiming In :
Might I suggest hinting in the press conversation co-counsel conversation to suggest that you can get by with a way to change the facts of the case? For example, add the frame: (I'll need to bring every important-looking fact of this case out in the open.)

If the player doesn't assume somebody watered the plant, some logic as before. If they do make that assumption, the fact that somebody had to enter the room to water the plant is important, and they can present the plant to bring that fact out.
EDIT: BP's thought below was what I meant. Fixed.
I'd accept that.
User avatar
Bad Player
Posts: 7228
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: American
Location: Under a bridge

Re: [T] Two Sides of the Same Turnabout ☆

Post by Bad Player »

Super-important announcement: All fades are now back and working again (in firefox)
we also finished making the qa changes, like, a couple of weeks ago, but i don't think anybody really cares about that
User avatar
Evo
Posts: 1844
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 12:30 pm
Spoken languages: Deutsch, English

Re: [T] Two Sides of the Same Turnabout ★

Post by Evo »

★ The QA inspection is complete. This case is now featured. Congratulations!
Post Reply