Making More Challenging Contradictions
Moderator: EN - Forum Moderators
- henke37
- Security expert / tools programmer
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:42 pm
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: Swedish,English
- Location: Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Guide: Making More Challenging Contradictions
Well, the testimony from Gant in 1-5 had a lot of pressing and stuff. It's a mess, just like revelation it represents.
Currently working on a redesign of Court-records.net.
- SwagmaWampyr
- Posts: 7338
- Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:15 pm
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: English, Basic 1337
- Location: The mucky muck castle made of clouds
Re: Guide: Making More Challenging Contradictions
The Gant testimony was dumb. It wasn't hard because it was hard, it was hard because the game was extremley nitpicky about pressing.
That one testimony in Turnabout at the Convention is how you do a Press-In-Order testimony.
That one testimony in Turnabout at the Convention is how you do a Press-In-Order testimony.
- Blackrune
- Posts: 3805
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:11 am
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: English, German, Japanese
- Location: The Submarine
Re: Guide: Making More Challenging Contradictions
Veeeeery detailed guide. This should definitely help to get away from those overused "number of shots, time of death"-contradictions.
However, one should make sure that it's challenging but fair. (at least imo)
Overdoing it with those memorie-requiring contradiction can easily make a long case ridiculously hard, but depending on how it's done the player might just say "screw it" and look for a walkthrough. *coughSubstitutioncough*
I don't say that I think it's wrong to do this, just remember that you can't expect the players to have photographic memories. xD
Also, regarding Chekhov's gun. Of course this can make things easy, but that's where Chekhov's boomerang comes into play.
It's important to always stay true to this rule. Don't give the player evidence without any relevance. Never.
A-Hem, let's take an example out of my quote-pool again.
Turnabout Scapegoat has rather easy contradictions for the most part imo. It's still one of my favourite fancases.
A lot of the official cases like 3-3 just give you the decisive piece of evidence right before you have to use it. It's obvious but one is still enjoying the brilliance of how it's used. 1-5's final piece of evidence was rather obvious as well, but damn did I love to shove it into Gant's face.
... Just remember that your case doesn't become good just because it's challenging.
However, one should make sure that it's challenging but fair. (at least imo)
Overdoing it with those memorie-requiring contradiction can easily make a long case ridiculously hard, but depending on how it's done the player might just say "screw it" and look for a walkthrough. *coughSubstitutioncough*
You can't expect the player to remember the exact wording of the second sentence of person X on investigation day 1 in the final trial of day 3, unless it's somehow been shown that it will be important."The whole question of Dagmar Doubledick's guilt," declares the detective, "turns on the kind of necktie he was wearing when we met him that day at Wemmerly Park. Of course you remember it was a green tie?"
To which the honest reader is compelled to answer: "No, I'm damned if I do!"
And then, if he is conscientious, he will turn back through the book to discover whether Dagmar Doubledick's tie really was green. Perhaps he finds this clue, a violet by amossy stone, half hidden somewhere in the dusky recesses of Chapter Six; perhaps he misses the page and does not find it at all. In either case he is left with a vague feeling of dissatisfaction: as though he has been, if not swindled, at least out-talked.
Spoiler : Virtual Turnabout :
Also, regarding Chekhov's gun. Of course this can make things easy, but that's where Chekhov's boomerang comes into play.
Spoiler : Virtual again :
A-Hem, let's take an example out of my quote-pool again.
Remember, difficulty isn't all. it has to be hard but fair.Suppose you are reading a detective story with an intriguing situation. A corpse (let us say) is found strangled,
sitting in a chair by a window, and wearing a domino mask; and all the clocks in the house are found with their faces turned to the wall.
You are carefully warned that the blazing clue to the truth is the fact that there is a teaspoon in the victim's pocket,
and that, without all these things being just as they were, the crime could never have taken place. ...
Now, suppose at the denoument the identity of the killer was revealed for the simple reason that his fingerprints matched
those on the collar of the strangled man. Would you feel cheated? That's exactly what might happen in life; but would you feel cheated?
You know damn well you would. ... He admits the crime. Then he shoots himself. Consequently, you never know the significance of the mask
or the reversed clocks, or what deduction you should have drawn from the teaspoon. Page 315, 'The End'. What would you do? You would
strangle the author, lynch the publisher, and shoot the bookseller.
Turnabout Scapegoat has rather easy contradictions for the most part imo. It's still one of my favourite fancases.
A lot of the official cases like 3-3 just give you the decisive piece of evidence right before you have to use it. It's obvious but one is still enjoying the brilliance of how it's used. 1-5's final piece of evidence was rather obvious as well, but damn did I love to shove it into Gant's face.
... Just remember that your case doesn't become good just because it's challenging.
- Ping'
- Posts: 843
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:23 pm
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: Français, English, Español
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: Guide: Making More Challenging Contradictions
> I agree. I don't have anything specific in mind, but this guide could benefit from some good Scapegoat examples if someone remembers them.Blackrune wrote: Turnabout Scapegoat has rather easy contradictions for the most part imo. It's still one of my favourite fancases.
- Bad Player
- Posts: 7228
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: American
- Location: Under a bridge
Re: Guide: Making More Challenging Contradictions
Well that's a bit different from the "Press Statement X --> Get Statement Y --> Present Evidence Z at Statement Y" that is used a lot.henke37 wrote:Well, the testimony from Gant in 1-5 had a lot of pressing and stuff. It's a mess, just like revelation it represents.
This I disagree with. A well-done red herring never hurtsBlackrune wrote:It's important to always stay true to this rule. Don't give the player evidence without any relevance. Never.
TScape also had lots of testimonies with multiple contradictions. So even if there wasn't one hard contradiction, there were a few easy ones, and finding them all is still kinda tough. And it was great not just because of its contradictions, but also its overall plot, its dialogue, and its characters, which are all stuff you can't forget about in your quest to make great contradictions xDBlackrune wrote:Turnabout Scapegoat has rather easy contradictions for the most part imo. It's still one of my favourite fancases.
- Blackrune
- Posts: 3805
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:11 am
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: English, German, Japanese
- Location: The Submarine
Re: Guide: Making More Challenging Contradictions
Depends on how it's done. If everyone keeps insisting that something is important, then it should be used somehow, or at least explained why everyone was fooled. (I mean, it's not like I never tried to mislead)This I disagree with. A well-done red herring never hurts
At least let the player present it and fall into the trap. Otherwise you could just toss 50 pieces of evidence on him that will never get used.
- Ping'
- Posts: 843
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:23 pm
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: Français, English, Español
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: Guide: Making More Challenging Contradictions
Well, let's say there are 30 pieces of evidence. You've already presented all 29 one way or another, you know this is the last "present" of the trial, and the only one you haven't used seems relevant to the given question. In that case, it's more challenging for the evidence NOT to be this one (it can still be useful though, for instance if it gave you important information during the investigation or if it's used later on as an optional present in the epilogue).
On the same subject, Substitution has an interesting twist on this that provides for a way in which "irrelevant" evidence can be justified.
On the same subject, Substitution has an interesting twist on this that provides for a way in which "irrelevant" evidence can be justified.
Spoiler : huge Turnabout Substitution spoilers :
Last edited by Ping' on Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Bad Player
- Posts: 7228
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: American
- Location: Under a bridge
Re: Guide: Making More Challenging Contradictions
Yeah, that's why I said "well-done" Having everyone insist a certain piece of evidence is important, and that it's the key to the case, and that it's vital, and then having it not show up at all is just bad storytelling. You could have a piece of evidence be very strange and odd and suspicious and then not be used, but even if you don't make the player present it you should still address it to provide a sense of closure with regards to that piece of evidence.Blackrune wrote:Depends on how it's done. If everyone keeps insisting that something is important, then it should be used somehow, or at least explained why everyone was fooled. (I mean, it's not like I never tried to mislead)This I disagree with. A well-done red herring never hurts
At least let the player present it and fall into the trap. Otherwise you could just toss 50 pieces of evidence on him that will never get used.
You could also have a piece of evidence that isn't used by having it provide clarifying information for the player (ex. a map) or by making that evidence necessary for a contradiction, but making a different piece of evidence that actual contradictory piece.
- Meph
- Posts: 13439
- Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:07 pm
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: English
- Location: Probably Disneyland Paris... or the UK
Re: Guide: Making More Challenging Contradictions
Ah! Now this is a really good guide. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, because CES 2011 has arrived, and I'm reading many news articles about it. However, I've read a few paragraphs. You've got some really helpful information here, Jean. It was really kind of you to write it.
If you would like this to be added to the list of guides, just ask.
EDIT: I've finally read all of this, now. I love the scientific method that you've created to measure the difficulty of a contradiction. It's a brilliant guide, and it shows how difficult it is to make a contradiction. Even if you think of a good contradiction, you also have the difficulty of designing it around the story of the case.
If you would like this to be added to the list of guides, just ask.
EDIT: I've finally read all of this, now. I love the scientific method that you've created to measure the difficulty of a contradiction. It's a brilliant guide, and it shows how difficult it is to make a contradiction. Even if you think of a good contradiction, you also have the difficulty of designing it around the story of the case.
Turnabout Carjack | Secrets of a Turnabout
Unas's Birthday Bash (19th - 20th - 21st) | Franziska vs. Oldbag | Turnabout With a Theme
TGS Special Courtroom Session (2005 - 2006) | Turnabout Chill | Turnabout of the Wild West
- SuperGanondorf
- Posts: 3729
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:37 pm
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: American English, learning German
- Location: The End of Time
Re: Guide: Making More Challenging Contradictions
Brilliant guide, I must say. I agree with Meph's statement that the "scientific method" used here is quite good. I'll definitely use this to help me.
One suggestion I might make is to use the 2-4 videotape as an example for a "memory" category contradiction (well, not contradiction technically but it still falls under the same category). It is an ideal example.
Another suggestion: You've done pretty well describing how to structure your evidence and the like, but you've neglected two things:
1. As henke said, press statements. These are often vital to contradictions, and if used effectively can add another dimension to the cross-examinations.
2. The phrasing of the testimony, as well. Some contradictions are blatantly said during testimonies, but others are subtle or implied.
For instance, some arguments, rather than the statement itself being contradictory, the statements or opinions that are expressed are based on faulty assumptions, a contradiction I like to call "The Truthful Lie". The reasoning, not the facts, are contradictory.
For example, let's say that the witness is testifying about a defendant's escape. "As I watched, the figure tried to escape by truck. It was out of gas, though, so he had to run away on foot instead." Now, let's say prior testimony and evidence has supported the theory that whoever did this ran away on foot. This is, for all intents and purposes, a confirmed fact. However, the truck was confirmed to have gas by the police nonetheless, so this cannot be true.
Now, the fact the witness expressed was true, but the reason the witness gave was based on an impossible premise. This changes the question being asked, from "Did he run away?" to "Why did he run away on foot instead of the easier alternative?" The answer is either a)the witness is lying about the truck, in which case why?, or b)the killer was going to use the truck but didn't, again making the question "why?"
While this example is far from flawless, it is still good for showing the reasoning behind "The Truthful Lie". These types of contradictions are also usually pretty subtle, disguised by the fact that the statement itself is true. Useful for raising new questions that are vital to the case rather than just just having a character ask them outright. Just make sure that you have answers for these questions and that those answers are eventually revealed.
Other than these two points, great job! It is a very useful and thorough guide, especially to those who are new to the trial-writing process. Good work!
One suggestion I might make is to use the 2-4 videotape as an example for a "memory" category contradiction (well, not contradiction technically but it still falls under the same category). It is an ideal example.
Another suggestion: You've done pretty well describing how to structure your evidence and the like, but you've neglected two things:
1. As henke said, press statements. These are often vital to contradictions, and if used effectively can add another dimension to the cross-examinations.
2. The phrasing of the testimony, as well. Some contradictions are blatantly said during testimonies, but others are subtle or implied.
For instance, some arguments, rather than the statement itself being contradictory, the statements or opinions that are expressed are based on faulty assumptions, a contradiction I like to call "The Truthful Lie". The reasoning, not the facts, are contradictory.
For example, let's say that the witness is testifying about a defendant's escape. "As I watched, the figure tried to escape by truck. It was out of gas, though, so he had to run away on foot instead." Now, let's say prior testimony and evidence has supported the theory that whoever did this ran away on foot. This is, for all intents and purposes, a confirmed fact. However, the truck was confirmed to have gas by the police nonetheless, so this cannot be true.
Now, the fact the witness expressed was true, but the reason the witness gave was based on an impossible premise. This changes the question being asked, from "Did he run away?" to "Why did he run away on foot instead of the easier alternative?" The answer is either a)the witness is lying about the truck, in which case why?, or b)the killer was going to use the truck but didn't, again making the question "why?"
While this example is far from flawless, it is still good for showing the reasoning behind "The Truthful Lie". These types of contradictions are also usually pretty subtle, disguised by the fact that the statement itself is true. Useful for raising new questions that are vital to the case rather than just just having a character ask them outright. Just make sure that you have answers for these questions and that those answers are eventually revealed.
Other than these two points, great job! It is a very useful and thorough guide, especially to those who are new to the trial-writing process. Good work!
Main admin of the official AAO Chatroom
Ace Attorneys: Emerging Legacies Team Member
Creator of AAO's #1 Roleplay, Endless Time! Come join today!
It even has a TVTropes page!
ENDLESS TIME: WINNER OF BEST AAO RP
Also the winner of:
Ace Attorneys: Emerging Legacies Team Member
Creator of AAO's #1 Roleplay, Endless Time! Come join today!
It even has a TVTropes page!
ENDLESS TIME: WINNER OF BEST AAO RP
Also the winner of:
Spoiler : Endless Time's Awards :
- Jean Of mArc
- Posts: 822
- Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:19 am
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: English, French, Japanese
Re: Guide: Making More Challenging Contradictions
((The guide has just been updated with 5 new entries))
Wow!!! I'm really glad to see that this guide is generating so much response! I'm especially enjoying people's contributions to it, and learning about different things to be aware of or careful of!!
henke37: Thanks for the apology. I was glad to read that you liked it after all! I've added 3 new sections to the guide based on your contributions: use of pictures, testimony revealing/options, and crazy use of evidence. The only one I skipped out on was press-all-to-continue, because, like Bad Player, I was unable to see how that makes a contradiction more challenging to find (which is the subject of this guide) if the cross-examination ends after everything has been pressed and nothing has been presented. Thanks for your input!
E.D. Revoluion: Thanks for the compliment! I'll get Meph to add it.
Ping': Calling a guide a "must-read" is a very high compliment indeed! I added your bit about the "30 pieces of evidence" to the guide. Hope that's okay! Thanks a lot for your support and for participating in the discussion!
Bad Player: Couldn't find your typo in the guide I copied, so maybe I already fixed it.
Blackrune: I completely agree with you: having a trial be challenging does NOT a good trial make. However, storytelling or difficulty balance were not so much the focus of this guide. Instead, I was curious about how to get past the "Witness says A, Court Record says B" contradictions to actually get to the meat of good contradictions. So, for my own purposes, I started to analyse some of the ones from the real games, and found all sorts of information that I wanted to share with the community. However, your warning is a good one, and I've added a few quotes of yours into the guide, including a disclaimer at the end. I didn't add the bit about the red herring since that has more to do with case design than challenging contradictions. Thanks for those tidbits of wisdom. Oh, and I liked your quotes: what are they originally from?
Meph: Really glad you enjoyed the guide! You're right, designing all of these things around a good story is very difficult indeed. And yes, please add it to the list of guides, if you please!
SuperGanondorf: Thanks for the compliments, and very nice contributions!! Your explanation of "The Truthful Lie" was detailed enough that I barely had to write anything about it when I added it to the guide.
A good contradiction always leads the story on by answering old questions and opening up new ones. Of course, that is case-design, not in the scope of this guide... however, if someone wants to start such a guide up, it might be very useful!!
Thanks again everyone!! If you have any more ideas, just post them!
Wow!!! I'm really glad to see that this guide is generating so much response! I'm especially enjoying people's contributions to it, and learning about different things to be aware of or careful of!!
henke37: Thanks for the apology. I was glad to read that you liked it after all! I've added 3 new sections to the guide based on your contributions: use of pictures, testimony revealing/options, and crazy use of evidence. The only one I skipped out on was press-all-to-continue, because, like Bad Player, I was unable to see how that makes a contradiction more challenging to find (which is the subject of this guide) if the cross-examination ends after everything has been pressed and nothing has been presented. Thanks for your input!
E.D. Revoluion: Thanks for the compliment! I'll get Meph to add it.
Ping': Calling a guide a "must-read" is a very high compliment indeed! I added your bit about the "30 pieces of evidence" to the guide. Hope that's okay! Thanks a lot for your support and for participating in the discussion!
Bad Player: Couldn't find your typo in the guide I copied, so maybe I already fixed it.
Blackrune: I completely agree with you: having a trial be challenging does NOT a good trial make. However, storytelling or difficulty balance were not so much the focus of this guide. Instead, I was curious about how to get past the "Witness says A, Court Record says B" contradictions to actually get to the meat of good contradictions. So, for my own purposes, I started to analyse some of the ones from the real games, and found all sorts of information that I wanted to share with the community. However, your warning is a good one, and I've added a few quotes of yours into the guide, including a disclaimer at the end. I didn't add the bit about the red herring since that has more to do with case design than challenging contradictions. Thanks for those tidbits of wisdom. Oh, and I liked your quotes: what are they originally from?
Meph: Really glad you enjoyed the guide! You're right, designing all of these things around a good story is very difficult indeed. And yes, please add it to the list of guides, if you please!
SuperGanondorf: Thanks for the compliments, and very nice contributions!! Your explanation of "The Truthful Lie" was detailed enough that I barely had to write anything about it when I added it to the guide.
A good contradiction always leads the story on by answering old questions and opening up new ones. Of course, that is case-design, not in the scope of this guide... however, if someone wants to start such a guide up, it might be very useful!!
Thanks again everyone!! If you have any more ideas, just post them!
- SuperGanondorf
- Posts: 3729
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:37 pm
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: American English, learning German
- Location: The End of Time
Re: Guide: Making More Challenging Contradictions
Okappa already did start one of those "whole case design" guides, and it's very good, but it doesn't really address anything you have here- this is a very thorough guide that is very useful.
Main admin of the official AAO Chatroom
Ace Attorneys: Emerging Legacies Team Member
Creator of AAO's #1 Roleplay, Endless Time! Come join today!
It even has a TVTropes page!
ENDLESS TIME: WINNER OF BEST AAO RP
Also the winner of:
Ace Attorneys: Emerging Legacies Team Member
Creator of AAO's #1 Roleplay, Endless Time! Come join today!
It even has a TVTropes page!
ENDLESS TIME: WINNER OF BEST AAO RP
Also the winner of:
Spoiler : Endless Time's Awards :
- Bad Player
- Posts: 7228
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: American
- Location: Under a bridge
Re: Guide: Making More Challenging Contradictions
No, it's there If you look at the "3-4" spoiler under the "Relevant Evidence/Profile Quantity" you'll see I put in a "]" but forgot the "[/spoiler" (And don't worry, there aren't any actual real 3-4 spoilers under that tag... there are 4-2 spoilers tho )
- henke37
- Security expert / tools programmer
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:42 pm
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: Swedish,English
- Location: Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Guide: Making More Challenging Contradictions
One thing that has been bugging me about how some contradictions work is that the witnesses have a tendency to randomly add a new fact that is off topic and is obviously the contradiction. They usually do it when revising their testimonies.
Stuff like "lol, he died./I wasn't there./Btw, it was sunny outside", where the testimony was supposed to be about how the witness wasn't a witness. The weather wasn't the subject, so why was it included?
There is also a theme of testimonies being given by the killer including a statement that effectively says "You can't prove unlikely event X" at the end. It is more or less asking the player to shove evidence to the contrary in their face. But it's not always the correct statement to worry about. But usually it's such an important plot point that the player can directly see how to prove them wrong, such as the diary page in 4-4.
Stuff like "lol, he died./I wasn't there./Btw, it was sunny outside", where the testimony was supposed to be about how the witness wasn't a witness. The weather wasn't the subject, so why was it included?
There is also a theme of testimonies being given by the killer including a statement that effectively says "You can't prove unlikely event X" at the end. It is more or less asking the player to shove evidence to the contrary in their face. But it's not always the correct statement to worry about. But usually it's such an important plot point that the player can directly see how to prove them wrong, such as the diary page in 4-4.
Currently working on a redesign of Court-records.net.
- Jean Of mArc
- Posts: 822
- Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:19 am
- Gender: Male
- Spoken languages: English, French, Japanese
Re: Guide: Making More Challenging Contradictions
SuperGanondorf: I was not aware of that guide! Although it wasn't quite what I was thinking (it concentrated more on characters and storyline than on designing the case), it was still a good read and worth a consideration for people who want to make their trials more interesting and memorable. Thanks for pointing it out.
Bad Player: Ah, found it and fixed it! Just so you know, in the guide I removed your hesitation quote in the "knowledge requirement" section in favour of making a general rule: any knowledge required to figure out a contradiction (except for common knowledge) should be presented at an earlier point in the case. For example, if you need to know that ice freezes at 0 degrees Celsius and below, this should be mentioned at some point earlier in the case before it is required that the player use the knowledge. That way, we never have to worry about the player missing a piece of the puzzle. Sound good?
As far as the "you can't prove it" stuff it concerned, I know what you mean. It would make a lot more sense if these kinds of challenges were outside of testimonies altogether. As in, the defence has just suggested a theory, and then the witness or prosecution or judge is saying "Well, can you prove that ___?" or "Can you show us who _____?" Most of the canonical games do it this way, though there are a few exceptions.
Bad Player: Ah, found it and fixed it! Just so you know, in the guide I removed your hesitation quote in the "knowledge requirement" section in favour of making a general rule: any knowledge required to figure out a contradiction (except for common knowledge) should be presented at an earlier point in the case. For example, if you need to know that ice freezes at 0 degrees Celsius and below, this should be mentioned at some point earlier in the case before it is required that the player use the knowledge. That way, we never have to worry about the player missing a piece of the puzzle. Sound good?
henke37: I know EXACTLY what you mean, henke. It always bugged me when I saw that because it just plain didn't flow. It would make a lot more sense if the player had to directly choose to ask the witness about the weather, because it would explain WHY the witness would be forced to mention it. But when they mention it out of nowhere, it immediately becomes suspect. Of course, sometimes things like that are in there to throw you off, though it still is a little odd...henke37 wrote:One thing that has been bugging me about how some contradictions work is that the witnesses have a tendency to randomly add a new fact that is off topic and is obviously the contradiction. They usually do it when revising their testimonies.
Stuff like "lol, he died./I wasn't there./Btw, it was sunny outside", where the testimony was supposed to be about how the witness wasn't a witness. The weather wasn't the subject, so why was it included?
As far as the "you can't prove it" stuff it concerned, I know what you mean. It would make a lot more sense if these kinds of challenges were outside of testimonies altogether. As in, the defence has just suggested a theory, and then the witness or prosecution or judge is saying "Well, can you prove that ___?" or "Can you show us who _____?" Most of the canonical games do it this way, though there are a few exceptions.