Making More Challenging Contradictions

Find detailed help from the AAO community, or write your own tutorials.

Moderator: EN - Forum Moderators

User avatar
Jean Of mArc
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:19 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, French, Japanese

Making More Challenging Contradictions

Post by Jean Of mArc »

--- Making More Challenging Contradictions ---
I would be honoured if other people could help contribute to this guide. Credit will be given!

Introduction

The purpose of this guide is to help aspiring trial-makers create more challenging cross-examinations in their trials. Often it is hard to come up with a challenging cross-examination, because the contradiction is too easy to find. This can be frustrating for you as a creator, because your hard work takes no time for the player to play through, and isn't very interesting for the player either. I have not yet created my own proper "trial" on this site, and so instead I would like to closely examine the cross-examinations from canonical Ace Attorney games to find a theory with which to apply to our own trials.

If you are more interested in the kinds of contradictions that are used in trials, please check out my other guide Encyclopedia of Contradictions.

Examples

Before we jump into the theories, let's look at 6 examples from the first 2 games of the Phoenix Wright series. Spoilers are clearly fore-warned within the following block, so don't worry!

Easy Contradictions

Here is an example from the first trial of "Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney".
Spoiler : Example from 1-1 :
Sahwit is explaining how he had witnessed a murder, and immediately phoned the police.
He states in his testimony: "I remember the time exactly: it was 1:00 PM."
If you check your Court Record, your Autopsy Report states that the murder occurred at 4:00 PM.

The contradiction here is very easy to spot: At 1:00 PM, the murder had not yet taken place.
Here is another example from the second trial of "Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney".
Spoiler : Example from 1-2 :
Mr. White says "The victim dodged to the left."
There is a statement from an earlier testimony in the Court Record stating "The victim dodged to the right."

This contradiction is also very easy to spot: the victim could not have dodged in both directions at once.
Challenging Contradictions

This is an example from the first case of "Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney"
Spoiler : Example from 1-1 :
Mr. Sahwit says that the clock was not 3 hours off on the day of the murder.
Looking at the Court Record, we see that the victim was in Paris the day before the murder.

The contradiction is that the clock was actually 9 hours ahead from her visit to Paris, but had not yet been changed back to local time.
Here is an example from the first trial of "Phoenix Wright: Justice For All".
Spoiler : Example from 2-1 :
Detective Gumshoe says that analysis has been done, and shown all the signs that Dustin had written that name himself.
Looking at the Court Record, we can see that he did indeed write a message on the ground.
If we are paying attention, we would notice that the victim wrote the message with his right hand.
Looking at the baseball glove in the Court Record, we can see that the glove fits over the right hand.
However, we know that baseball gloves are to be worn on the user's off-hand, not their writing hand.
So if the baseball glove was right-handed, then Dustin must have been left-handed.

The contradiction: Dustin's message was written with his right hand, but Dustin was left-handed.
This is an example from the third case of "Phoenix Wright: Justice For All"
Spoiler : Example from 2-3 :
MAJOR SPOILER of "Turnabout Big Top":
Phoenix is trying to figure out how the incident that happened with the Lion is connected to the current murder.
Acro is saying he would have no motive to kill Mr. Barry.
Acro's brother Bat had been in love with Regina Barry.
He would often tease her by putting pepper under her nose to make her sneeze all day.
Six months ago Bat put his head inside of Leon the lion's head, to impress Regina.
However, the Lion smiled and then chomped down on Bat's head, putting him in a coma and Acro in a wheelchair when he tried to save his brother.
Acro saved his brother Bat's scarf that was covered in blood and pepper.
Regina had given Bat the scarf as a present.
The contradiction? Regina had poured pepper on Bat's scarf as a joke to get back at him. The pepper caused the lion to sneeze, which is what put Bat into a coma. Phoenix deduces that Acro had never intended to kill Mr. Barry, but Regina, because Acro would consider her responsible for her brother's condition.
This is an example from the fourth case of "Phoenix Wright: Justice For All"
Spoiler : Example from 2-4 :
Adrian Andrews states that the button with Juan's blood on it must have been ripped off the victim's clothes during their struggle, and got caught in the accused's (Matt's) clothes.
The Court Record does indeed show a button that was covered with Juan's blood. It was found in Matt's hakama (clothes).
The knife that was used to stab the victim (Juan) was covered with Matt's fingerprints.
The photo shows very clearly that there is a knife in Juan, one of his buttons is missing, and that area is covered with blood.
The Autopsy Report says that Juan was first straggled, then stabbed with the knife.

The contradiction? If Matt had first killed the victim by straggling him, there would have been no blood until he was stabbed.
He would not have had to struggle with him when he stabbed him with the knife.
Therefore, the button would have had to be deliberately taken off the victim only after he had been killed and stabbed, and placed in his own clothes.
But no one would deliberately place such obvious evidence on their person.
The Theory

Okay, so now let's take a closer look at WHY some of these are easier to detect than others. I have a theory developing, though I admit it may not be complete, and welcome additions and adjustments.

The level of difficulty in a contradiction depends on several factors:

Information Requirement

How much information is required in order to find the contradiction? By information, I am referring to the information that is specific to the case at hand.

For example, if the witness says that the killer was wearing red clothes, but the Court Record says that he was wearing blue clothes. We need no more information to find the contradiction here, we can object with this alone. This only took 2 pieces of information.

Now for a more challenging example:
Let's say that the witness is mentions in a testimony that he is very protective of his family members.
1. The Court Record shows that there was a jar of peanuts at the witness' home. This seems irrelevant.
2. We've met the witness' cousin, and the Court Record shows that she is allergic to peanuts. However, this alone would not show any contradiction, as the witness' cousin would not necessarily visit the witness, nor would the witness necessarily take out the jar of peanuts out if their cousin was around.
3. We look further in the Court Record and find that the witness mentioned that he was roommates with his work colleague. Still, this is shows no contradiction.
4. We then notice in the Court Records and find a document showing that the witness and his cousin owned and operated a business together.
Now we can piece this together: The witness brought peanuts into his home despite the fact that his cousin, who is also his roommate, is allergic to them. However, this contradiction connection took 4 pieces of information to figure out.
Bad Player wrote:One of the most common contradiction types that you should take advantage of a lot. The trick to making good contradictions like this is to make the implications of the information contradict
Spoiler : 2-4 :
the autopsy report indicates that Juan bled after the struggle, the button indicates that Juan bled before/during the struggle
, not the direct information
Spoiler : 1-1 :
the autopsy report says 4, the witness says 1
The more pieces of information needed to make a contradiction, the more challenging it will be.

Knowledge Requirement

How easy is the knowledge that contradicts two statements? By knowledge, I am referring to knowledge that is true regardless of the details of a specific case.

In easy cases, it will be common knowledge that the player does not have to think about or research. In harder cases, it will be lesser-known knowledge that the player may have to ponder or research before being able to answer.
For example, if a witness says that they screamed at seeing the sight of a murder at 1:00, but the murder took place at 1:30, then the knowledge we require is the fact that time moves forward. This is indeed very basic knowledge that is true regardless of the case at hand.

However in more difficult cases, let's say that the witness is saying that the victim had slipped on a patch of ice while trying to escape. The Court Record says that it had been 11 degrees Celsius at the location of the murder. The player would have to know that in Celsius, water freezes at 0 degrees and below in order to find the contradiction: there wouldn't have been any ice for the victim to slip on if the the temperature had been 11 degrees Celsius in the area. This contradiction is less obvious, especially for Americans who use the Imperial system, and therefore more challenging to detect.

Although I have seen this requirement used very effectively in many mysteries movies, shows, novels and in the Phoenix Wright games, you must be careful not to over-do it or require the player to know information that is outside of the scope of common knowledge. As a good example, a baseball glove is usually worn on the off-hand; this is common knowledge, but not plainly obvious when you see a baseball glove in your court record.

If the knowledge required for the contradiction is beyond common knowledge, make sure that this knowledge is presented earlier in the case, without adding it to the Court Record. For example, you could have a character casually mentioned to the player that your forearm is the same length as your foot (really, it is). Then later if we had a footprint, we could use the knowledge the size to determine the length of the person's arm, which might be important in a contradiction.

Here is an example of "provided knowledge" from the second case of "Phoenix Wright: Justice For All"
Spoiler : Example from 2-2 :
In your first testimony with Detective Gumshoe, you must press all statements to continue the trial (there is no contradiction). He explains that they know the victim was shot at point-blank range because such shots leaves a gunpowder burn around the bullet hole.
In the third testimony with Gumshoe, he mentions that "The victim took a shot [at Maya], but because they were too close, he missed."
However, there is no gunshot burn around the bullet hole in Maya's costume!
This is using knowledge that was revealed earlier in the same testimony, so it is not unreasonable to expect the player to know it.
The less common the knowledge, and more knowledge required, to find the contradiction, the more challenging it will be.

Deduction Requirement

How much is the player required to deduce the situation? By deduction I mean how much the player as to assume/infer/imply based on the evidence and statements.

An easy example would be if a witness was stating that the victim had poured herself a glass of water, but hadn't taken a drink. However, the evidence shows that a half-glass of water had been found, with the victim's lip marks around the lip of the glass and their hand prints around the sides of the glass. The deduction required is minimal: the victim most likely drank some of the water. Note that this is an ASSUMPTION because it is conceivable that the victim only poured a half-glass of water (or poured some out), grabbed the glass, put their lips to it but did NOT drink it, but this is highly unlikely. We are making an DEDUCTION based on the evidence which contradicts the witness' testimony.

A more challenging example of an assumption would be: in a particular room there is a display case for 4 expensive glasses, but only 3 were found. In the closet, there is a broom, a mop and a vacuum cleaner. An earlier witness named Ms. Y had stated that they had heard loud rumbling noises coming from the room with Mr. X in it. Ms. Y had gone into the room later and found small sparkles on the ground. Mr. X is giving his testimony, and states that he "hadn't touched anything in the room."
The contradiction? Mr. Y had heard a loud noise coming from the room Mr. X was in. We ASSUME it came from the vacuum cleaner, since nothing else in the room would do that. We DEDUCE that he was cleaning up glass, which would explain the sparkles that Ms. Y saw later. We DEDUCE that he must have been the one who broke the glass too, which is why it was missing from the display case. However, these are indeed all deductions: we have no proof of any of these things, other than the assumption fits the evidence.
Bad Player wrote: The other most common way to make a contradiction. Also pretty closely linked to the information contradiction, since the assumption/deduction comes from the information. This is knowing the evidence, but not knowing how it fits together, and it's what creates the mystery in the case. For a great example of an entire case of this, go play The Virtual Turnabout. For an obnoxiously large number of great examples of this, go read Detective Conan (which follows the pretty strict format of "Chapter 1: This is how the guy died. Chapter 2: Here's all the clues pertaining to the crime. Chapter 3: Here's the solution."). (Note: While Detective Conan does great assumption/deduction contradictions, be warned that it does some atrocious knowledge contradictions.)
The more assumption and deduction required to find the contradiction, the more challenging it will be.

Memory Requirement

How much is the player required to remember? By this, I am referring to the amount of statements that have previously been made in the trial that are NOT in the Court Record. Also worth considering is how long ago the statements were made, and how often they had been re-enforced. This is a special case because often within the games, memory requirements do not happen during contradictions: you can't present your memories. However, there are cases in which you present a piece of evidence or a profile not because of what the Court Record says, but because of what you remember about it.

As an easy example, let's say that at the beginning of the trial a flashlight had been submitted as evidence because it bared the defendant's fingerprints and was found at the scene of the crime. After it has been added, the defence tries to turn it on, but finds it to be broken. The prosecution casually mentions that yes, the flashlight is indeed broken, but is important because of the prints. Then the first witness comes up and states "I saw him shine his flashlight on the victim!" This is a pretty easy one to remember because the statement about the flashlight had just been made, and directly contradicts the witness's statement.

A harder example would be if during the investigation, you are talking to Mr. X who casually mentions that they had gone to football game at 6 PM the night before the murder. Much later in the game, a witness Ms. Y is saying that they had seen Mr. X at the grocery store on February 24th. The Court Record says that the murder took place February 25th.
The contradiction here is that Ms. Y couldn't have seen Mr. X on the evening of the 24th because he had been at a football game that night. It is easy to see the contradiction here when they are laid out side-by-side, however in a real game this would require that the player be able to remember this small detail much later in the game, which is indeed a challenge for most people. Be careful not to over-do this one, however, as it can be frustrating for the player if they've completely forgotten the piece of information and can't see it in their Court Records.

For an excellent example of memory-requirement, consider this example from the third case in "Phoenix Wright: Justice For All"
Spoiler : Example from 2-3 :
Huge spoiler of 2-3 ahead!
von Karma demands proof about your theory that Max' bust was indeed the murder weapon, and that it was lifted up.
First, the player has to recall that Moe saw Max, with his cloak and hat ON, fly off into the air.
Second, the player recalls that the hat was found at the scene of the crime, meaning that there had to be TWO hats, or else one was the bust and one was the real hat.
Finally, the player must recall that Trio saw the roses on the cloak, but Moe did not. This would make sense if the cloak snagged on to the bust, as suggested.
Therefore, the fact that the silk hat was found on the ground, in conjunction with earlier memories, shows that the theory carries a lot of weight.
Bad Player wrote: Probably the most evil of all contradiction types. You can make super-challenging contradictions with this, however, you should probably do no more than one per case. Also, another way to make it more challenging besides putting in a lot of detail and making them remember it for a long time is to make the detail very inconspicuous.
Spoiler : Example: Turnabout Substitution :
The gum, of course. Rhea says: "Do you know why I wear headphones to the hardware stores? I don't want to hear the lies they're trying to sell me." "Do you know why I hate playing billiards on a pool table? It's just not right." "Do you know why I put lemon and strawberry gum in the same box? I want to experience everything I can." It sounds like your run-of-the-mill wacky assistant tips. By the third one, you probably want her to shut up with her stupid analogy and get on with the hint. But wait, the third time, the stupid analogy she opens with becomes the entire basis of you accusation against her. Chekhov's Gun kind of ruins this one, since you have the lemon and strawberry gum in the court record at that point, so if the player is paying attention as soon as Rhea mentions lemon and strawberry gum they should infer that that gum and Rhea's statement are going to be connected, but still, you should understand what I'm saying.
Spoiler : Example: The Virtual Turnabout :
This was not a contradiction exactly, but after the final reveal and everything has been explained, Polly says "Yeah you have feet injuries. Remember way back at the beginning when I described your walking as 'hobbling'?" It wasn't used as a contradiction itself, but it was still something at the very beginning of the case being used as evidence at the very end.
Basically, a Memory Contradiction can take Chekhov's Gun and shoot the player with it at point blank. Just... be careful, because it's pretty easy to kill at that range >.<
Blackrune wrote: One should make sure that it's challenging but fair....
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*
"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.
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.
Spoiler : Virtual Turnabout :
That's why I didn't ask the player to remember the "hobbling". Now THAT would have been a little too much because it was just mentioned on a side-note and never again after that. I could have Apollo wondering "Huh? Isn't he hobbling?" and put the "Huh?"-sound to that statement, then its relevance would have been somewhat pointed out.
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
The more you require the player to remember about a piece of evidence or profile, and the longer you require them to remember it to find a contradiction, the more challenging it will be.

Statement Quantity

How many statements must the player sift through? That is to say, how many panels are there in the witness's testimony which could potentially be contradicted? Having a greater number of statements may decrease the player's ability to select which one contains the contradiction. This is especially true if there are a high number of questionable statements.

As an easy example, if there are only 4 panels of statements in a testimony, the player may be able to select the correct one simply by eliminating the others has suspicious.

However, if there are 10 panels to choose from, and 4 of them are very questionable, it may take the player a bit longer to isolate where the problem is.

The more questionable statements in a testimony, the more challenging it will be.

Relevant Evidence/Profile Quantity

How many pieces of evidence and profiles does the player have to choose from? This is especially true if the pieces of evidence or profiles have a high relationship to the statements that are being made. This is similar to the Statement Quantity because the two combine to make more and more potential combinations.

For an easy example, if you have 5 statements, 3 pieces of evidence, and 4 profiles, then there are 5 * 3 = 15 possible evidence to statement possibilities, and 5 * 4 = 20 possible profile to statement possibilities, for a total of 35 possibilities. This may seem like a lot, however when the player eliminates the statements that are not suspicious, the pieces of evidence that are irrelevant, and the profiles that probably have nothing to do with the problem, there are usually only a few choices left.

However, for a hard example, if you have 10 statements, 12 pieces of evidence and 8 profiles, you will have ( 10 * 12 ) + ( 10 * 8 ) = 200 possibilities! And if there are many suspicious statements, many pieces of relevant evidence, and many suspects in your profiles, you've just made the contradiction much harder to find.
Bad Player wrote: ...Statement Quantity examples are 3-2 and Silence of the Turnabout (the testimonies to which I am referring should be obvious if you've played them) and Evidence/Profile Quantity examples are 1-5 and AAI-5... If you have a ton of pieces of evidence, but there's this incident that happened 8 months ago and you only have 1 piece of evidence that relates to it, well, anytime you have an issue with that incident 8 months ago you are only going to have 1 "real" choice, which isn't a choice at all. You could have 100 pieces of evidence, but if each contradiction is a "here is a key/here is a keyhole" problem and each piece of evidence is a one-hit-wonder, it's not going to be very hard.
Spoiler : Example: 3-4 :
Oh, I already ranted about 3-4 earlier, didn't I? Anyway, all I'll say is that most of the evidence was relevant throughout most of the trial, which kept the relevant evidence quantity constant and the contradictions hard.
Spoiler : Example: 4-2 :
The final magic panties present. Because when you look at the relevant evidence, there... isn't much. (Yes, the panties were found in the car's exhaust pipe, but that's easy to forget.) It's easy to think "Oh the panties were just to explain what Wesley was doing at the scene" but then it comes out of nowhere at the very end as the decisive evidence. Also another great way of using Chekhov's Gun to your advantage.
Ping' wrote: 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.
Spoiler : Huge Turnabout Substitution Spoilers :
There are in effect two different cases, but the evidence from the first one isn't removed from the Court Record after it's solved because the cases are very much related. You could say that most pieces of evidence from the first investigation are irrelevant to Chambers' murder. However, one in particular isn't (the photo of Rhea and Nathan). Because all the evidence is kept in the Court Record, the genre-savvy player knows that at least some will be reused, but doesn't know which ones. If all had been removed save for the photo instead, smart players would have instantly known there was something fishy about Rhea, and might have guessed she was the killer too early.
The more relevant pieces of evidence and profiles in a player's Court Record when searching for contradictions, the more challenging it will be.

Evidence Re-usage (contributed by Bad Player)

How often are the pieces of evidence used and re-used during the course of the case? It is very important that the pieces of evidence are not all only presented once. The reason for this is because if evidence is only used once, then the player can start to eliminate the evidence as being useful after they have presented it, thereby deducing what it is they need to present next not by clever logic, but simply by process of elimination.
Bad Player wrote: Beware of Chekhov's Gun, for it can undermine a great contradiction. (If you do not know what Chekhov's Gun is, it is basically "Any detail that is given special detail to will become important later on in the story," or, in AA's case, "Every piece of evidence will be used.") You could have a super-hard contradiction, but if it's the end of the case and there's that piece of evidence that you haven't used... Well, it's easy. Using evidence multiple times, especially in the final showdown, makes it that much harder.
Here is an example from the fourth case of "Phoenix Wright: Trials & Tribulations":
Spoiler : Good example from: 3-4 :
3-4 had 9 pieces of evidence. 8 if you don't count the attorney's badge. Most of them are introduced at the beginning. A few of the pieces of evidence are one-hit-wonders, but then the rest are used over and over and over and over again throughout the case. Plus almost all of them are relevant almost all the time. In most of the cases, you can say "Okay, which pieces of evidence are relevant to the case at hand, and which haven't I used yet" most of the time and it'll get you through, but 3-4 will have you crash and burn if you try that. It's probably the best examine of creating many contradictions with just a few pieces of evidence.
And another example from Blackrune's "Ace Attorney Online: The Virtual Turnabout":
Spoiler : Example (bad): The Virtual Turnabout :
The chair. You go through the entire case, go through all the crazy contradictions and plot twists, and the chair just sits there. So, when you finally get to the end, "Oh I've gotta use the chair, I haven't used it yet!". The chair was used epically, and created a great mystery, but when you had to present it, it was easy. If there had been some other issue earlier in the trial that involved the chair, this would have been much harder, as Chekhov's Gun wouldn't make it a simple process of elimination. (Sorry Blackrune ^^')
Anyway, it's kind of impossible not to fall victim to Chekhov's Gun; however, you should try to avoid having it fire at the climax of the case.
The more often the player must choose from the same pieces of evidence to find a contradiction, the more challenging it will be.

Usage of Images (contributed by henke37)

Are images used in finding the contradiction? Does the player have to first detect a problem before being able to present it? Usually, each piece of evidence in your Court Record has only a maximum of 3 facts written about it. However, they say that a pictures is worth a thousand words. This means that each picture has MANY facts hidden within. This is used several times in real Ace Attorney games, and is usually much more challenging for the player (and often more interesting), than just reading the facts. This can be a picture of the crime scene, a map of the location, or even an old friendship photo that proves a relationship between two people.

Here is a simple example from the first case of "Phoenix Wright: Justice For All"
Spoiler : Example from 2-1 :
Phoenix corners the witness, noting that there was a 15 minute gap between when the witness saw the crime and when he phoned the police.
To explain this gap, he said that he had been searching for a phone booth.
However, looking at the photo of the crime, a phone booth can be seen sitting off in the corner.
The contradiction is clear, but the player had to search for it, rather than ever being told "there was a phone booth nearby."
henke37 wrote:The use of pictures can be quite interesting, because you have to actually examine the picture carefully. And it's even more complicated if you also have to match it up with a statement.
The more a player has to search for a piece of evidence within a photograph to find a contradiction, the more challenging it will be.

Searching Requirement (contributed by henke37)

How much does the player have to search, press and ask the witness to find the contradiction? Is the contradiction obvious right from the initial testimony, or does it present itself while pressing the witness? If the player does not have to do much searching, the contradiction will be easier to find. If they must search for the contradiction through pressing and answering questions, it will become more challenging.

For an easy example, the witness makes 5 statements. If the player presses the second one, a new statement is appended to the testimony, which contains the contradiction. This is easy to find because of the fact that the player will think "if that statement was hidden, it MUST be the contradiction!"

For a more challenging example, the witness might initially make 5 statements. If the player presses the 2nd statement, there are 3 choices of what to ask the witness about. If the player asks the correct one, the witness reveals new information, which is then appended to their testimony. If the player presses this new statement, he again get 3 choices to chose from. If he selects the right one, then the player will learn about a new piece of evidence. Finally, this new piece of evidence contradicts the witness's 4th statement.
henke37 wrote: Not only can they be hints... they can actually change the situation by adding statements and/or evidence. But there is also the press-all-to-continue setup... And of course the ever so fun "what to ask?" choice.
SuperGanondorf wrote: AA veterans will by now know that whenever a statement is revealed, it is the end-all be-all. ALWAYS. One way you can break this mold is to have the revealed statement subtly contradict a previous statement in the testimony, like Phoenix's tripping up of Shelley during 2-4. This can, like any mechanic, boost the difficulty if used right. However, this one is a difficult line to tread, since it wouldn't make sense to have completely opposite statements on the record for a testimony ("I found the body at 4" and "I found the body at 2" would be just dumb). Instead, maybe have the revealed statement's implications contradict the original statement, rather than the fact itself. "The killer parked the car in the driveway and went inside" and later in the testimony the statement is revealed, "He came out of the door and ran away", for instance, would raise questions. Why didn't he use the car?
The more a player has to search the testimony by pressing and answering questions to reveal new information, the more challenging it will be.

Unusual Usage of Evidence (contributed by henke37)

How were the pieces of evidence actually used in the case? That is to say, are the pieces of evidence actually used for the purpose they were designed for? This is sort of a special case, but can also be one of the most satisfying for the player to discover. Let's say, for example, there was a gunshot through a plastic bottle. Up until that point in the case, it had been assumed that the shot just so happened to go through the bottle when it was fired. However, there could be a point in which the bottle as to why another person did not hear the gunshot: the killer put the rim of the bottle over the barrel of the gun, and it acted as a silencer.

Another example is when the evidence is actually used by the defence as a item in court for a very unusual purpose (you'll have to have played the games to understand the references):
henke37 wrote:Some examples about crazy usage:
Spoiler : Example from 1-4 :
the secret weapon in 1-4. It is logical and is pretty much the only thing that makes sense, but it is far from a common use.
Spoiler : Example from Trials & Tribulations :
Also, Godot's profile being used not for what it says or represents, but for what it actually shows.
The more unusual the use of the evidence/profiles in a contradiction, the more challenging it will be.

The Truthful Lie (contributed by SuperGanondorf)

Does the statement contain both something that is true, and a lie? Ie, is there a true statement with a false explanation?
SuperGanondorf wrote: ...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.
The more hidden or implied the contradiction is in a series of true statements, the more challenging it will be.

Statement Phrasing (contributed by SuperGanondorf)
SuperGanondorf wrote: The games show that whenever someone makes a sweeping or authoritative statement ("There's no way he could have done it!" or "There's no way that car could have been used!"), it's usually a contradiction. There is rarely any challenge in testimonies with those types of statements because they almost always have flaws. The problem is that it can be hard to break out of this mold of beating the player over the head with "THIS IS THE STATMENT! THIS IS THE STATEMENT!" There is a delicate balance between subtlety and leaving out important facts. There are a few ways to make the contradiction statement more subtle:

1. Avoid all-encompassing statements. These generally point the player straight to them since there is rarely any case where something is ALWAYS true. Instead of having a statement like, "He definitely did it. That's the only explanation," try combining it with other statements. "He probably didn't do it. After all, the evidence..." and so on. I am well aware that I am horrible at examples, but I think you see where I'm going here. Combining statements logically can up the difficulty.

2. Disguise the contradiction with personality. Many characters are... odd. Yes, let's leave it at that. Several times in the games, the statements are obscured by odd phrasing and other character-specific quirks, like Redd White's vocabulation or Luke Atmey's arrogance. These quirks, if used effectively, can disguise a contradiction by making it look like flamboyancy or personality. Just don't go overboard and make the contradiction invisible because the statement can't be made sense of.
The less obvious a contradiction is made by the wording of the statements, the more challenging it will be.

Analysis of Examples

Let us now take a look at some the examples given above, with the addition of analysis taken from our theory.

Easy Contradictions
Spoiler : Easy Example from 1-1 :
  • Information Required (2):
    • The witness said they found the body at 1:00 PM.
    • The Autopsy Report says the victim died at 4:00 PM.
    Knowledge Required (1):
    • (Very Easy) Time goes forwards.
    Assumptions: None
    Memory: None
    Statements: 10
    Pieces of Evidence: 4
    Profiles: 5

    Conclusion: Although there are many statements in this testimony, the most suspicious one is when the witness mentions a specific time. When we see a different time mentioned in the Court Records, the contradiction is obvious.
Spoiler : Easy Example from 1-2 :
Information Required (2):
  • The witness says the victim dodged to the left.
  • An earlier witness said the victim dodged to the right.
Knowledge Required (1):
  • (Very Easy) Left is not the same direction as right.
Assumptions: None
Memory: None
Statements: 5
Pieces of Evidence: 7
Profiles: 6

Conclusion: Even though the number of pieces of evidence is higher than the first example, the number of statements is less, and the contradiction is still quite easy to spot.
Challenging Contradictions
Spoiler : Challenging Example from 1-1 :
Information Required (3):
  • The witness challenges that the victim's alarm clock was not 3 hours behind on the day of the murder.
  • The murder occurred on July 31.
  • The victim had just returned from Paris on July 30.
Knowledge Required (2):
  • The time difference between the crime scene and Paris is 9 hours.
  • 9 hours ahead of time could also be interpreted as 3 hours behind on a 12-hour clock.
Assumptions (3):
  • The victim took the clock with her to Paris.
  • She had set the clock to the France time zone while in Paris.
  • She had not yet set the clock back to local time.
Memory (1):
  • The clock is currently 3 hours behind.
Statements: 1
Pieces of Evidence: 4
Profiles: 5

Conclusion: This proof was made challenging because of several factors: it took 3 pieces of information, 2 pieces of knowledge, 3 assumptions and 1 memory in order to come to the conclusion. Because it is the first case in the game, however, it was made easier by the fact that there was only 1 statement (it was a "show-me-proof", not a testimony), the "memory" is very easy to remember, and there were not many pieces of evidence or profiles to choose from.
Spoiler : Challenging Example from 2-1 :
Information Required (4):
  • The witness states that the victim himself wrote the message on the ground.
  • The photograph shows that the victim did indeed write a message on the ground.
  • The message was written with his right-hand.
  • The defendant had given the victim a right-hand baseball glove for his birthday.
Knowledge Required (2):
  • A baseball glove is worn on the user's off-hand, not their writing hand.
  • It is very difficult for someone to write with their off-hand.
Assumptions: None
Memory: None
Statements: 6
Pieces of Evidence: 5
Profiles: 4

Conclusion: There are quite a few pieces of information required to put this together, and some knowledge is required too. However, it is made simpler in the game because the evidence/profiles are few and the defendant pretty much points out the problem.
Spoiler : Challenging Example from 2-3 :
Information Required (5):
  • There was a bottle of pepper found in the trunk that the victim was hunched over.
  • The witness's brother had put his head in a lion's mouth to impress his girlfriend.
  • Leon the lion had attacked the witness and his brother, putting the witness in a wheelchair and his brother in a coma.
  • The girlfriend had given the witness' brother a scarf as a gift.
  • The scarf was covered with pepper and blood from the attack.
Memory (3):
  • The witness' brother and his girlfriend were lovers.
  • The witness' brother used to tease his girlfriend by using pepper to make her sneeze.
  • The lion looked like he was smiling when he bit the witness' brother's head.
Knowledge Required (2):
  • Lions don't smile, but they do sneeze.
  • Pepper makes people/animals sneeze.
Assumptions/Deductions (2):
  • The girlfriend put the pepper on the scarf as a practical joke on her boyfriend.
  • The pepper on the scarf caused the lion to sneeze.
Statements: 1
Pieces of Evidence: 15
Profiles: 11

Conclusion: This problem is near the very end of this case, and so is naturally very challenging. This is the point in which the realisation of the accident that had taken place is revealed. It required 5 pieces of information, 3 memories, 2 pieces of knowledge, and 2 very important assumptions/deductions. This is what makes it very difficult to figure out at any earlier point in the case.
Spoiler : Challenging Example from 2-4 :
Information Required (6):
  • The witness says that the button was ripped off the victim during a struggle.
  • There is a button covered with the victim's blood.
  • The button was found in the defendant's clothing.
  • The knife that was used to stab the victim was covered in the defendant's fingerprints.
  • The photo shows that there is a knife in the victim, from which blood is being drawn and a button is missing.
  • The Autopsy Report says that the victim was straggled first, then stabbed with the knife.
Knowledge Required (2):
  • Death by strangling leaves no blood.
  • A dead person would not put up a fight.
Assumptions (1):
  • A killer would not deliberately put decisive evidence in their own clothes.
[/list]
Memory: None
Statements: 6
Pieces of Evidence: 12
Profiles: 8

Conclusion: This contradiction can be much more challenging to find because of all that was necessary to piece it together. It required 6 pieces of information, 2 pieces of knowledge, and 1 assumption. There were 7 * (12 + 8) = 140 possibilities, making guessing a very bad idea, not to mention that there are a few suspicious statements and a number of relevant pieces of evidence.
Conclusion

Making a good case is a huge challenge in and of itself, for you the creator. You want to make sure that your trial also poses as a challenge for the player who is experiencing it for the first time. From now on, whenever you make a trial and you are considering your cross-examinations, why not put them through these tests to find out how easy/hard your contradiction will be to find? Ask yourself the following questions:

1. How much information will the player need in order to make the correct contradiction?
- The minimum for this is 2 pieces: what the witness says, and the information that contradicts it.
- Therefore, if your cross-examination only requires 2 pieces, it will be very easy to find.
- To increase the challenge, try requiring more pieces of information.
- An example would be: instead of saying an event took place "the day before the murder" when this piece of information is very important, show instead the date of the murder in the Autopsy Report and the date the event. The player then requires them both to make the connection.

2. What knowledge will the player need in order to connect the information?
- Consider, what must the player be aware of in order to make the contradiction?
- If they are simple, the connections will be easier to make: time moves forward, blue is not red, the statue is not a clock, etc.
- If they are more difficult or require though, the connections will be more challenging: water cannot freeze above 0 degrees Celsius, a right-handed baseball glove means a left-handed person, etc.
- To increase the challenge, try re-wording the testimonies, evidence etc to make things require more thought. For example, instead of saying "it was above freezing level", say "it was 11 degrees Celsius." Then the player has to figure it out on their own.

3. What assumptions/deductions does the player need to make in order to get the answer?
- In the earlier Phoenix Wright cases, Phoenix and his co-council will do a lot of the assumption/deduction work for the player by thinking out loud. For example "wait a minute, he must have been left-handed!"
- However, in the more challenging trials, these are NOT said out loud and require the player to come to those conclusions themselves before they will be able to choose the correct statement/evidence combo.
- Therefore, if you make too many of the connections for the player, your trial will be easy.
- To increase the challenge, let them make the assumptions themselves: deliberately leave out any information that the player COULD deduce on their own based on the current information.

4. How much does your player have to remember about your trial to uncover the mysteries?
- In easy games, all the information necessary for the player is provided in the Court Record. In fact, it is conceivable that someone could jump right in the middle and still make the correct contradictions just by looking at what is already there.
- To increase the challenge, don't always add every bit of information to the Court Record... if some new information has been discovered about a piece of evidence, decide if it is necessary to actually add it. One good reason as to why a piece of information is not added to the record is that the information seems irrelevant at the time it was exposed.
- Careful not to over-do this, as the player might find it impossible to choose the correct thing simply because they forgot.

5. How many statements are in this cross-examination?
- The fewer the statements in your cross-examination, the less the player will have to consider.
- To increase the challenge, try adding more statements to your cross-examination. Make sure that they have some information that could potentially be inaccurate. For example adding something like "He dodged to the left to avoid a blow." is good because it has something that could potentially be wrong (even if it is accurate, it still adds to the challenge). However, adding something like "And that's what happened!" is not going to add any challenge.

6. How many pieces of evidence and how many profiles are present during this cross-examination? How relevant are they?
- If you only have a few pieces of evidence at hand, it doesn't matter how much information/knowledge/memory you require, the player could always just try everything and find out what works. That's why the last piece of evidence to present in 1-1 is not too hard, despite it being a more challenging contradiction.
- Therefore to increase the challenge, simple make sure that there are more piece of evidence and profiles to choose from. This is especially true if there are many pieces that seem to be relevant.
- Don't go overboard though and add a bunch of useless items. If you add any piece, make sure that it needs to be presented to someone at some point, otherwise the player will feel like those pieces are just taking up useless space, like the Attorney Badge.

7. How often have the pieces of evidence been reused? Is there a piece of evidence that is never used? Is there a piece of evidence that is never used until the end?
- Any new piece of evidence that you add to the Court Record will make the player suspicious of it, since they know they will have to present it at some point.
- If they only need to present each piece of evidence once, they will start to eliminate them.
- If there is a piece of evidence that has not yet been used for a long time, it is MUCH more suspect.
- Therefore, to increase challenge in your case, make sure that you are re-using your evidence! However, you don't have to re-use all of them, or any specific amount.

8. Are images used as a means of finding a contradiction in the testimony?
- Images require the player to do some in-court investigation that they cannot do with regular pieces of evidence.
- They can provide the player with more creative means of expressing their suspicions, such as where the killer was standing, where the victim was, etc.
- For added challenge, make the player not only choose the correct area of the correct image, but make them have to answer a question about it as well.
- Therefore, to increase the challenge of your case, make use of images!

9. How much does the player have to search through testimonies to find the contradiction?
- Adding hidden panels to the testimony that become revealed by pressing will make the contradiction less obvious at first.
- However, make sure that the revealed panel doesn't always directly contain the contradiction, or it will be too easy.
- Therefore, to increase the challenge, use multiple hidden panels, or hidden panels within hidden panels, to make the contradiction less obvious.
- Requiring the player to answer questions to get necessary information will also increase the challenge.
- Revealing new evidence along the way is a good idea on occasion too, but don't over-do it.

10. How often is the usage of the evidence very unconventional? Are they ever used as items instead of evidence?
- This is especially great to use late in your case, when the player firmly believes that the details of a piece of evidence has already been established.
- You really have to think outside-the-box to come up with these, but they are extremely clever in the game when done right.
- Therefore, to increase the challenge, try and use at least one or two pieces of evidence that are used or act in an unusual way.

11. Does the wording of the testimony make the contradiction harder to find? Is there a lie buried in truth?
- The player should have to examine the words of the testimony carefully in order to find out what the problem is.
- Sometimes the testimony doesn't directly contain the lie, but implies the lie, which is revealed through pressing.
- Therefore, to increase the challenge, re-word some of your testimonies to make the lie less obvious.

Disclaimer: Although the purpose of this guide is to help trial-makers create more challenging trials, remember that the main point of a trial is to be enjoyable to the player in terms of story, characters, mystery and emotion. Don't make your trials impossible to play!
Blackrune wrote: Remember, difficulty isn't all. it has to be hard but fair...
Just remember that your case doesn't become good just because it's challenging.
I hope this guide will help people in their trial-making endeavours!
By all means, I don't consider this guide to be definitive, so feel free to contribute!
If you've used this guide to help you with your trial-making, a quick post to let me know that it helped would be much appreciated!!
Last edited by Jean Of mArc on Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:03 am, edited 24 times in total.
User avatar
gotMLK7
Moderator
Posts: 5957
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:34 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, learning French
Location: I could tell you, but then I'd have to KILL YOU...

Re: Guide: Making More Challenging Contradictions

Post by gotMLK7 »

Huh...this is actually REALLY convenient!
Image
Image
Image
Image
Hersh/Fiendy has credit for the amazing GiGi pics and enigma has credit for the adorable Kenshin Mega Man sprite!

Image
Mimi
Posts: 10382
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:35 am
Gender: Female
Spoken languages: English: the only language I can brag about

Re: Guide: Making More Challenging Contradictions

Post by Mimi »

Not a bad guide at all. I could use this. Thanks! It's really helpful, although I haven't used it yet.

(No duh, you just read it!) :calisto:
User avatar
mAc Chaos
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 3:33 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: Phyrexylvania

Re: Guide: Making More Challenging Contradictions

Post by mAc Chaos »

Awesome guide! I've been thinking about what makes a hard contradiction myself, and this is a big help.
The wolf knows what the ill heart thinks.
@mAcChaos

BEHOLD, the ULTIMATE CASE: MACFIA, an epic journey through time and space.
User avatar
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

Post by Bad Player »

Hmmm....

Well, this is a very interesting read. However, I feel it mostly says why challenging contradictions are challenging but not really how to make challenging contradictions. Not that that's a bad thing.

Something else to note: Beware of Chekhov's Gun, for it can undermine a great contradiction. (If you do not know what Chekhov's Gun is, it is basically "Any detail that is given special detail to will become important later on in the story," or, in AA's case, "Every piece of evidence will be used.") You could have a super-hard contradiction, but if it's the end of the case and there's that piece of evidence that you haven't used... Well, it's easy. Using evidence multiple times, especially in the final showdown, makes it that much harder.
Spoiler : Examine (good): 3-4 :
3-4 had 9 pieces of evidence. 8 if you don't count the attorney's badge. Most of them are introduced at the beginning. A few of the pieces of evidence are one-hit-wonders, but then the rest are used over and over and over and over again throughout the case. Plus almost all of them are relevant almost all the time. In most of the cases, you can say "Okay, which pieces of evidence are relevant to the case at hand, and which haven't I used yet" most of the time and it'll get you through, but 3-4 will have you crash and burn if you try that. It's probably the best examine of creating many contradictions with just a few pieces of evidence.
Spoiler : Example (bad): The Virtual Turnabout :
The chair. You go through the entire case, go through all the crazy contradictions and plot twists, and the chair just sits there. So, when you finally get to the end, "Oh I've gotta use the chair, I haven't used it yet!". The chair was used epically, and created a great mystery, but when you had to present it, it was easy. If there had been some other issue earlier in the trial that involved the chair, this would have been much harder, as Chekhov's Gun wouldn't make it a simple process of elimination. (Sorry Blackrune ^^')
Anyway, it's kind of impossible not to fall victim to Chekhov's Gun; however, you should try to avoid having it fire at the climax of the case.


Also just my comments on your different types of contradictions:
Information Requirements: One of the most common contradiction types that you should take advantage of a lot. The trick to making good contradictions like this is to make the implications of the information contradict
Spoiler : 2-4 :
the autopsy report indicates that Juan bled after the struggle, the button indicates that Juan bled before/during the struggle
, not the direct information
Spoiler : 1-1 :
the autopsy report says 4, the witness says 1
Knowledge Requirement: These are kind of cheap shot contradictions. All information needed should be presented in the case in some shape or form; if your contradiction requires information that the player doesn't have, he's trying to solve a puzzle without all the pieces, and it just isn't fair. Also, if you don't know what you're doing, this can easily backfire.
Spoiler : 2-1 :
You can write with your fingertip with both hands. Go ahead, try it; write your name in the air with your left index fingertip and your right index fingertip. Weird, huh? Of course, this means that Dustin could have written "Maggie" just fine...
Assumption/Deduction: The other most common way to make a contradiction. Also pretty closely linked to the information contradiction, since the assumption/deduction comes from the information. This is knowing the evidence, but not knowing how it fits together, and it's what creates the mystery in the case. For a great example of an entire case of this, go play The Virtual Turnabout. For an obnoxiously large number of great examples of this, go read Detective Conan (which follows the pretty strict format of "Chapter 1: This is how the guy died. Chapter 2: Here's all the clues pertaining to the crime. Chapter 3: Here's the solution."). (Note: While Detective Conan does great assumption/deduction contradictions, be warned that it does some atrocious knowledge contradictions.)
Memory Requirement: Probably the most evil of all contradiction types. You can make super-challenging contradictions with this, however, you should probably do no more than one per case. Also, another way to make it more challenging besides putting in a lot of detail and making them remember it for a long time is to make the detail very inconspicuous.
Spoiler : Example: Turnabout Substitution :
The gum, of course. Rhea says: "Do you know why I wear headphones to the hardware stores? I don't want to hear the lies they're trying to sell me." "Do you know why I hate playing billiards on a pool table? It's just not right." "Do you know why I put lemon and strawberry gum in the same box? I want to experience everything I can." It sounds like your run-of-the-mill wacky assistant tips. By the third one, you probably want her to shut up with her stupid analogy and get on with the hint. But wait, the third time, the stupid analogy she opens with becomes the entire basis of you accusation against her. Chekhov's Gun kind of ruins this one, since you have the lemon and strawberry gum in the court record at that point, so if the player is paying attention as soon as Rhea mentions lemon and strawberry gum they should infer that that gum and Rhea's statement are going to be connected, but still, you should understand what I'm saying.
Spoiler : Example: The Virtual Turnabout :
This was not a contradiction exactly, but after the final reveal and everything has been explained, Polly says "Yeah you have feet injuries. Remember way back at the beginning when I described your walking as 'hobbling'?" It wasn't used as a contradiction itself, but it was still something at the very beginning of the case being used as evidence at the very end.
Basically, a Memory Contradiction can take Chekhov's Gun and shoot the player with it at point blank. Just... be careful, because it's pretty easy to kill at that range >.<
Statement/Evidence/Profile Quantity: These are basically the same thing; the more possibilities, the harder it is to find the right one. Statement Quantity examples are 3-2 and Silence of the Turnabout (the testimonies to which I am referring should be obvious if you've played them) and Evidence/Profile Quantity examples are 1-5 and AAI-5. Anyway, I think this should really be changed to "Relevant Statement/Evidence/Profile Quantity". If you have a ton of pieces of evidence, but there's this incident that happened 8 months ago and you only have 1 piece of evidence that relates to it, well, anytime you have an issue with that incident 8 months ago you are only going to have 1 "real" choice, which isn't a choice at all. You could have 100 pieces of evidence, but if each contradiction is a "here is a key/here is a keyhole" problem and each piece of evidence is a one-hit-wonder, it's not going to be very hard.
Spoiler : Example: 3-4 :
Oh, I already ranted about 3-4 earlier, didn't I? Anyway, all I'll say is that most of the evidence was relevant throughout most of the trial, which kept the relevant evidence quantity constant and the contradictions hard.
Spoiler : Example: 4-2 :
The final magic panties present. Because when you look at the relevant evidence, there... isn't much. (Yes, the panties were found in the car's exhaust pipe, but that's easy to forget.) It's easy to think "Oh the panties were just to explain what Wesley was doing at the scene" but then it comes out of nowhere at the very end as the decisive evidence. Also another great way of using Chekhov's Gun to your advantage.
Last edited by Bad Player on Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mimi
Posts: 10382
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:35 am
Gender: Female
Spoken languages: English: the only language I can brag about

Re: Guide: Making More Challenging Contradictions

Post by Mimi »

You have a point. More all the reason to make all the evidence related. :mrgreen:
User avatar
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

Post by Jean Of mArc »

gotMLK7, Mimi Mika & mAc Chaos: Glad you like the guide! I hope it comes in handy for you!!

Bad Player: Good show, Bad Player! Thanks a lot for contributing. I actually was just adding a "conclusion" which touches on some of the things you've mentioned before I had even seen what you had written. In particular, it adds the "how to do it" section rather than just an analysis of what's out there.
I have just added your contributions to the main post, giving you credit of course.
You bring up a lot of good points, such as don't make it so that the "key" is the one thing you haven't used yet, make sure that there are a number of relevant pieces of evidence for any given situation, etc.
By the way, I still haven't played the third Phoenix Wright game, so I won't read your spoilers related to those, but I will add them to the post (I'll do it without my glasses so I can't read it) in the relevant sections.

Thanks a lot!
User avatar
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

Post by henke37 »

You have missed four things: How crazy the use of the evidence is, how many options are accepted, pressing and the use of pictures.

Some examples about crazy us: the secret weapon in 1-4. It is logical and is pretty much the only thing that makes sense, but it is far from a common use. Also, Godot's profile being used not for what it says or represents, but for what it actually shows.

You have also missed to deal with the pressing conversations. Not only can they be hints, but you also forgot about how they can actually change the situation by adding statements and/or evidence. But there is also the press-all-to-continue setup that you failed to address. And of course the ever so fun "what to ask?" choice.

The use of pictures can be quite interesting, because you have to actually examine the picture carefully. And it's even more complicated if you also have to match it up with a statement.
Currently working on a redesign of Court-records.net.
User avatar
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

Post by Jean Of mArc »

henke37: While I completely agree with the ideas you've presented, I do have to say: it can come across as a bit rude to just point out "you missed this" and "you failed to address" that, when I in fact requested input from others for specifically this purpose. Therefore, I left it open to suggestions, not "failed to address" the issues. I think a more constructive tone would be "I also have a few ideas that you could add to the guide" or something along those lines...

That being said, you've given 4 very good ideas as to what I could add to the guide as well. The more the better, as it will help trial-makers to improve the dynamics of their cases. I will add those tomorrow. Thanks for your contribution!
User avatar
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

Post by henke37 »

Sorry if I came out as rude. It's easy to miss that you requested input, it's a big post. But still, I stand by my wording that I feel that you missed the items.
Currently working on a redesign of Court-records.net.
User avatar
E.D.Revolution
Posts: 5743
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:00 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English and decent Spanish
Location: Across dimensions, transcending universes

Re: Guide: Making More Challenging Contradictions

Post by E.D.Revolution »

This is a very good guide, a standard of all contradictions that a trial author should be able to make use of.

You should post this guide in the sticked topic "List of guides"
Image
User avatar
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

Post by Ping' »

Thanks for this very useful guide!
Getting past the "witness says this, evidence says the opposite" stage to reach the point where contradictions have to be deduced by the player given certain information is one of the most difficult aspects of making a trial, so this is a must read for any trial maker (even among the best).
User avatar
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

Post by henke37 »

Indeed, it is a good guide. I need to remember to state such things.
Currently working on a redesign of Court-records.net.
User avatar
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

Post by Ping' »

Still, what you added is also crucial, especially the idea of coming up with "crazy uses" for certain pieces of evidence. There is something very clever and elegant in using a familiar object / fact in an unfamiliar way, and it can make for a great feel good moment when the player realizes how to do it.
User avatar
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

Post by Bad Player »

henke37 wrote:You have also missed to deal with the pressing conversations. Not only can they be hints, but you also forgot about how they can actually change the situation by adding statements and/or evidence. But there is also the press-all-to-continue setup that you failed to address.
These don't really add to the difficulty, imo. Unless it's one of those "wrong press = penalty" testimonies (or unless the contradiction is REALLY OBVIOUS, and sometimes even then for lulz) I always just go through and press every single statement before even thinking about what the contradiction is. I can't really speak for anyone else, but I'm assuming most people do that too, so it doesn't really increase the difficulty. (In fact, Chekhov's Gun decreases the difficulty: This statement was added after-the-fact? It must be important. It must be the contradictory statement!) Now, you could make a long chain of actions you need (Present A at statement B, answer multiple choice question C, then press statement D, "press harder", present evidence E, answer multiple choice question F, then have statement G added to the testimony) but the generic "Press statement X --> Add statement Y" does not really make a cross-examination harder. (Of course, you can always subvert the trope, and have statement Z be the contradictory statement, with the contradiction only apparent once statement Y has been added to the testimony.)


EDIT: Also, I made a typo in that very last spoiler tag (Now second-to-last ^^') where I forgot to close the spoiler tag.
Post Reply