Cross-Examination and Contradiction Design

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

Moderator: EN - Forum Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Cross-Examination and Contradiction Design

Post by Enthalpy »

Ace Attorney-style courtroom gameplay hinges on solid contradictions and cross-examinations. When these elements are weak, quality plummets. On the other hand, a good cross-examination can make a fancase memorable in itself. How, then, can we design trial gameplay that's strong enough to carry a case?

This guide, written by Enthalpy and Ferdielance, will set out to answer that question. I'll be referring to Jean of mArc’s Encyclopedia of Contradictions and Making More Challenging Contradictions, and Ferdielance’s Player’s Bill of Rights. Although this guide should be clear on its own, I recommend that you read those three excellent tutorials as well for more background.

It's impossible to learn how to write or design without practice, so this guide includes several exercises to try as you go. I suggest that you complete these exercises in a document or text editor. Select exercises have a case with bad/good examples of the rule in practice and possible solutions to the exercises. I will link the case when there is one.

A note on terminology: When we refer to cases by number (1-1, 2-2, etc), the first number corresponds to the entry in the series, and the second number to the case in that entry. The entries are:

1: Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney
2: Phoenix Wright: Justice for All
3: Phoenix Wright: Trials and Tribulations
4: Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney
5: Phoenix Wright: Dual Destinies

1-1, for example, is the first case of PW:AA.

What is a good cross-examination or contradiction, roughly?

Exercise 1:

Before we move on, let's get a general idea of what makes trial gameplay good or bad. In your notes, type out:

1) Three or more things that good cross-examinations have in common.
2) Three or more things that good contradictions have in common.


Once you’ve written your list, read the spoiler tag below or start playing the case:
Spoiler : :
A good cross-examination…
...is clearly motivated. We know why the characters are giving it.
...is economical, with no wasted frames.
...has solid puzzle design.
...is consistent with prior facts, characterization, and tone.
...has a purpose in the greater plot, and advances the mystery.

A good contradiction puzzle...
...will accept any reasonable answer, but no unreasonable ones.
...is comprehensible both when it is presented and when it is explained in hindsight, with all loose ends tied off before the game is finished.
...is reasonably solvable with the available relevant information by the player.
...has a solution that the player character can reasonably announce while remaining in-character.
...is appropriately difficult and sufficiently varied.
Are there any areas where we disagree? If so, why do you think that is? If you have an answer that isn’t on my list and you think it should be, post it in this thread for further discussion. For now, let's examine the ten ideas I've posted.

What makes a good cross-examination?

Here's one take on what a cross-examination is:

"A cross-examination is a simple series of statements. You can press the witness for more information about the statements, but one statement is false. Just pick a statement to be false, make sure the player can prove it's false, and you're done."

But if you try to make a good case, you'll soon realize that this simple structure hides a great deal of complexity.

Good cross-examinations are intricately structured puzzles. They are planned so that:

1) ...they advance the prosecution's case and hurt the defense with hard facts, arranged clearly to avoid unnecessary confusion....
2) ...those facts conflict with the evidence at hand in a limited number of ways - often only one...
3) ...pointing out these contradictions helps the player slowly break the prosecution's case, advance the story, and make progress...
4) ...but this progress can't be too tediously easy or pointlessly frustrating.

Clearly, there are a lot of guidelines to follow.

01. Make it clear WHY the cross-examination is being given.
If contradictions exist to help the player grope their way to truth, then there ought to be no needless complication. Forcing players to grapple with pointless digressions wastes mental energy. If the player ever asks, “Why is this cross-examination even being given?!”, the author has slipped up. One witness from Blackrune’s Virtual Turnabout says it best:
Image
In their hurry to introduce the clues, many authors break the golden rule of exposition:
WHY comes before WHAT!
Before you tell us what a witness knows, we need to know why anyone cares enough to bring them to the stand! No matter how much you want a witness to testify about a conversation with their boss thirty minutes before the crime, the characters need a reason to demand that testimony and the player needs a reason to care about it. Both of those are paramount. Free-floating, unmotivated testimonies confuse the player.

Be tough with yourself on this one, and don't try to fudge it with shallow relevance. In one real example, a testimony billed as “The Witness’s Alibi” is really about the intricacies of walking his dog, and proves nothing of relevance. The court has no real reason to care about an unsubstantiated alibi, so when the writer forces them to be struck by the revelation, the result strikes a jarring note. (Compare Ferdie’s Rules 7 and 17.)

Exercise 2:

Consider the following scenario:
The Scenario wrote:Through her apartment window, Marta Witnés (pronounced weet-NESS) saw a man climb out of the window of the apartment opposite hers, two hours before the crime. That apartment was not the crime scene, but was adjacent to it. The man looked over at her, and she ducked back inside her room. The next day, she received a threatening message telling her not to tell anyone of what she saw.

The author wants Marta to testify because the man climbing out of that window was actually walking along a window ledge to get to the crime scene. Marta did not see the moment he entered the crime scene, and the climbing happened, and she was not at home at the time of the crime.
How could the author introduce Marta's testimony in a believable way without relying on the following dubious devices:
** "We should interview a witness we haven't heard from yet! We need to interview all witnesses no matter how tangentially related!"
** "Maybe the neighbor might have seen something!" (made without justification)
Be creative. You may make up any evidence you like, as long as you come up with a reasonable answer. You can find a case version of the solution here.
Spoiler : Possible Answers :
* One possibility would be for the main character to acquire the message somehow during the investigation, and then link it to the crime via some detail mentioned in it. If she'd been threatened and told not to talk, it would stand to reason she'd seen something important.
* Another would be to give her a second connection to the crime, or to have her take extra steps to involve herself. For example, if she turned in anonymous evidence, such as a photo, it might be possible to trace it to her apartment based on its perspective. This would also raise the ethical question of forcing an anonymous informant to testify when they are in fear for their life, and would raise the emotional stakes of the trial.
02. Don't waste frames.
Dr. Seuss wrote:The writer who breeds more words than he needs
Is making a chore for the reader who reads.
Length is not quality. The more verbose a cross-examination, the more likely that critical details will vanish in the flood of wordy frames as the player clicks faster and faster to get through the blasted thing.

As a real example from an early case by a high-profile author:
* A witness rants at great length before even beginning his testimony...
* ...then rants at every press conversation...
* ...and then, to add insult to injury, briefly mentions one critical detail in one of those presses, which the player must recall later in the game.
Unfortunately, boredom dulls memory.

But not all cases of frame-wasting are this egregious, and conversely, not all long cross-examinations waste frames. Simply put, if a frame carries its weight, keep it. If it doesn't, it's a waste. A frame that "carries its weight" may communicate a plot point, a joke, characterization, or keep the dialogue sounding natural. Ideally, each frame should do more than one of these things! In contrast, detailed hypothetical tangents, in-jokes, rants, and banter that oversteps its punchline are all wastes of frames. When in doubt, cut, cut, cut.

Of course, if the entire cross-examination doesn't advance your trial in any way, it's a waste of frames. More on this later.

Exercise 3:

Consider the following statement and press:
Spoiler : Cross-Examination Segment :
Detective: *** DISCOVERING THE SCENE ***
Statement 1: "Me and the other officers arrived at the crime scene, where the murder happened, at about 1:30 PM in the afternoon..."
Press:
Attorney: "Would you say it was exactly 1:30 PM in the afternoon?"
Detective: "It was between 1:25 and 1:35 PM, I'd say!"
Attorney: "How can you know for sure? Did you look at your wristwatch?"
Detective: "I looked at my watch when I left the police department to go to the crime scene..."
Detective: "...and it was 1:15 then, down to the minute. And it's an accurate watch, see?"
Attorney: (He's... showing me a Blue Badger watch.)
Aide: "Wow! A Blue Badger watch! I love those!"
Aide: "Can I have one?"
Judge: "Where did you get that?"
Detective: "They sell them at the police station gift shop. They're really accurate... and cheap, too!"
Detective: "Anyway, I know the exact time when I left the police department."
Detective: "It takes between ten and twenty minutes to get to the scene, so yeah, I'd say between 1:25 and 1:35 PM in the afternoon!"
Detective: "Why? Is something wrong? I mean, the guy died at
Attorney: "You should be more precise!"
Prosecutor: "Objection! There's no reason to believe the exact moment of the detective's arrival is important!"
Attorney: "Objection! What if the real killer got away before he arrived?"
Prosecutor: "Objection! As you will soon see, there is no way that could have happened."
Judge: "The Defense should allow the detective to get on with his testimony... before we get any older."
Judge: "I can hardly see what difference a few minutes here or there would make. I mean, I'm ten minutes late for trials all the time and nobody cares!"
Prosecutor: "I agree that it's a trivial point."
Attorney: "Objection! Doesn't an investigation usually document all this stuff really closely and carefully?"
Prosecutor: "The camera on the detective's police car would normally have recorded the exact route and time..."
Prosecutor: "...but it seems to have been broken on the day of the murder."
Attorney: ...broken?
Detective: "Some punk kid threw a rock at it yesterday... I'm telling you, kids these days don't respect anybody. If I'd done that, my dad would've given me a good hiding, but now there's no discipline. You know they tried to spray-paint a Bad Badger on my trunk the other day? It took me hours and hours to get that paint out, and they docked my pay for it anyway! Chief said it looked unprofessional! Now, if it'd been a Blue Badger, I'd have just tried to pass it off as a publicity stunt..."
Judge: "The state of our youth is indeed shameful."
Judge: "Does the defense believe the broken camera is relevant to the case?"
Attorney: "We believe no stone should be left unturned. So while we are not certain of its relevance, we move that it be added to the Court Record... in case we need to revisit the problem later."
Judge: "Very well. Bailiff, put the detective's patrol car camera into evidence."
Detective: "I don't know what you think you're gonna find. It's broken."
Attorney: (I think the time of his arrival is really important...)
Attorney: (...but I can't prove anything yet.)
The challenge is this:
Assume that the killer turns out to be the detective, and that we later find out he left the police station at 12:45 PM and broke the police car camera himself.

How can the above press conversation be trimmed down without losing any vital information? Write your own edited version of the above press. Add whatever jokes you like! You can view our own solution, as well as the original cross-examination in case form, here.

03. Write good puzzles.

Some cross-examinations include puzzles that go beyond the usual contradictions. Such puzzles can either add entertaining variety or pointless boredom or frustration. While there's no simple recipe for a good puzzle, it is possible to discuss useful techniques and common mistakes. Here we'll cover the three most common puzzle types that don't rely on a simple presentation of evidence: the press-in-order, the press prompt, and the super-objection.

Press-in-order puzzles:
In press-in-order "puzzles", the player must first press one statement to raise a relevant piece of information, and then press another statement to use that information. In other words, the first press changes the dialogue of the second press. In some particularly cruel fangames, the second press must be made immediately after the first, without an intervening aide conversation, or repeated presses must be made to the same statement, often without motivation.

The canon games rarely use this technique and never require repeated or consecutive presses. There are no press-in-order puzzles in the entire first game, nor do they appear in Apollo Justice. The designers made this choice for good reason: in general, convoluted press-in-order puzzles do not challenge the player's reasoning, but rather their sheer persistence and patience with an arbitrary challenge. (Compare Ferdie’s Rule 6.)

Press prompt puzzles:
In press prompt puzzles, the player must select the answer to a multiple choice question or present evidence during a press conversation. The best canonical example is Polly's testimony in 1-4, in which the player must elicit evidence that connects two characters together while still in a cross-examination.
Here, fairness demands that the deduction be reasonable (a notion we'll cover later), and that the player is not penalized too harshly for a wrong answer, especially when some exploration is required. (Compare Ferdie’s Rules 1, 3,and 4.)

Super-Objections:

The most controversial puzzle type, and one that is only seen in fangames - and for good reason! A super-objection has the following traits:
* The player must present multiple pieces of evidence...
* ...usually without any clue as to how many pieces are needed...
* ...at a specific statement in the testimony.
The goal of these is usually to construct a theory that explains the crime, not reveal an explicit contradiction.
If you ever need to ask someone the question "Should I use a super-objection?" the answer is NO. If you really need to use one, you'll know it. Instead of super-objections, consider:
* Presses that ask the player for a specific number of pieces of evidence
* Guiding questions that make it more clear what is needed of the player
Why avoid super-objections? Two reasons:

* Super objections add too much combinatorial complexity. When you have 15 pieces of evidence, the number of possible 1, 2, 3, and 4-item combinations is 1940. Predicting how many of those will seem reasonable from a player's point of view is a little dicey. This is especially true when the nature of the theory is vague or abstract. One high-profile fangame demands a specific combination of evidence to show a killer's "motive." Unfortunately, at that point, an attentive player can come up with many, many possible ways to show a motive.
In contrast, the use of this device when it was first developed was relatively sane, in that the four pieces of evidence were all closely linked to each other in location and use.
* Super objections give poor feedback. Even if the player has the right idea, presenting even a single wrong piece of evidence gives the standard "wrong" response. The player can't tell if they're presenting the right idea the wrong way, or they're just wrong. This means the player must construct an entire theory in one shot, without errors, to a high degree of precision.

If you use a super-objection, make sure three things are clear:
* What you are asking (point A)
* How to present the right evidence once the player has figured out the answer (point B)
* Why the player should be able to get from Point A to Point B without pursuing any other equally plausible lines of reasoning.
Fairness is, again, discussed more in-depth in the contradiction section. (Compare Ferdie’s Rule 7, 8, 9 and 10.)

Exercise 4:

Consider the following super-objection puzzle:
Hypothetical Puzzle wrote:The player must prove that the killer did not shoot the victim, as the gun was locked away in a box, but instead stabbed them with an icepick at very close range and then planted a bullet in the wound with forceps. The autopsy report that would have shown injuries inconsistent with a gunshot was falsified. The player must present the awl, the falsified autopsy report, the bullet, and the forceps, but not the gun or the box.
How could this puzzle be rewritten to be fairer and not use a super-objection? We present one possible solution here, as well as a demonstration of how super-obections frustrate the player.

04. Be clearly consistent with the rest of the case. Keep your facts, characterization, and tone straight.

This rule is straightforward. Stay consistent with old facts, stay in-character, and keep a consistent tone. The difficult part is being clear about this.

In a real courtroom, if someone refers to something the court doesn't know yet, the opposing counsel can object! We call this "making assumptions not yet in evidence." Don't do that. Introduce facts clearly and concisely, and stick to them unless you want the player to jump on the discrepancy.

In addition, if a person's character changes suddenly, there'd better be a sound reason for it that the player knows, or it'll just look like unconfident writing. Finally, it takes a deft hand to change the tone of a case from serious to comic and back, so if you shift the tone, check whether or not this confuses your playtesters!

Remember: mystery game players are keeping an eye out for inconsistencies. Unintended inconsistencies lead to tremendous confusion!

05. Write each cross-examination with a purpose in mind.

Each contradiction should pull the case forward. If the author isn't absolutely confident that each cross-examination contributes to the solving of the mystery, then the player will be at a loss. Cross-examinations are not filler! If one does not build a case, rework it or cut it.
Here are the five most common purposes for a cross-examination, with explanation:

* Correcting Witness Testimony: What the witness claims is impossible. The attorney must resolve the impossibility, and in doing so, reveal new facts to advance the case. We see this basic technique in almost every canon case. Even in 1-1, Sahwit’s flawed testimony about the murder weapon being a clock works with his previous testimonies to trap him as the killer.

* Adding New Information (Long-Term) – Sometimes, testimonies and their contradictions establish new facts with future relevance, pieces of a chain of reasoning that will only become clear later in the case. However, this information is always eventually relevant. Frank Sawhit’s early testimonies in 1-1 fall into this category. The very first contradiction in the case reveals that he knew a clock was three hours off - a piece of information that lets us indict him at the end.

* Adding New Information (Short-Term) – Sometimes, you want a cross-examination to show an immediately relevant point. In 1-2, we called the bellboy to the stand so that he could testify to the presence of another man in April May’s hotel room. As soon as we know that, we have a new suspect.

* Forcing a Testimony – You may want to have a witness testify on something they would not normally talk about. In this case, a first cross-examination can set up a second testimony. Example: In 1-4, Phoenix traps Lotta Hart into admitting that a certain photo couldn't have shown Edgeworth's face clearly. This then forces her to testify again to reveal how she could have recognized him, putting new evidence into play.

* Narrative Effect – Cross-examinations can also be use to build tension, raise the stakes, and otherwise drive the story. Many cross-examinations in 1-4 were heavy in frantic pressing and light on contradictions. As Phoenix struggled forward, it seemed clearer and clearer that von Karma had built an inescapably airtight case. A testimony with no contradictions that gets progressively worse for the defendant as we press often helps raise tension.

Not every cross-examination needs a purpose on this list, but certainly every cross-examination needs some purpose.

Exercise 5:

Find examples of cross-examinations in the canonical AA games that serve each of the purposes above and make a list with notes. Either YouTube videos or this script for PW:AA may be helpful: http://www.gamefaqs.com/ds/925589-phoen ... faqs/42767.

How well do the cross-examinations fulfill these ends? Alternatively, try this exercise with a fancase and see whether the purpose of each cross-examination is clear, or if some seem to be "filler."

Summation

A good cross-examination…
...is clearly motivated. We know why the characters are giving it.
...is economical, with no wasted frames.
...has solid puzzle design.
...is consistent with prior facts, characterization, and tone.
...has a purpose in the greater plot, and advances the mystery.

With the rules for a cross-examination laid out, we can now turn our attention to contradictions.

What makes a good contradiction?

Contradictions, like cross-examinations, seem deceptively simple. The evidence says one thing, and the killer says another - how hard could that be?

Very hard, it turns out.

Every contradiction, like every cross-examination, must have a purpose and push the case forward. It must be fair and of appropriate difficulty. Contradictions should be varied and clever, and the author should anticipate alternative answers. Finally - and this point is often missed - the contradiction needs to actually contradict something! Expect to spend far, far, far more time designing a good contradiction than the player spends solving it. Here are some rules of thumb.

06. Respond to all reasonable answers, and never demand unreasonable ones.

This rule has two equally important parts.

First, make sure your testimonies don't contain unintended contradictions. Only careful design and playtesting will catch these, but the effort is worth it. Nothing frustrates a player more than being penalized for trying to point out a real problem in the testimony!
As a corollary, alternative ways of pointing out the real contradiction should be accepted! If two pieces of evidence show the contradiction, then accept both. This may require more coding or slight non-linearity. Where practical, every reasonable solution should elicit a custom response from the game - either a hint that the player is on the right track, or a cue that they are on the wrong track. (Compare Ferdie's Rule 15).
Example: A witness says they were never at the crime scene in person. Their fingerprints and footprints were found there. It would be wisest to accept either piece of evidence as a contradiction, and then ask for one more piece in the subsequent dialogue. There's no reason to demand the player present the evidence in an arbitrary order.

The second half of the rule is even more critical. Contradictions should really be contradictions. There should be a conflict between evidence and testimony that strongly rebuts the witness's statement! A contradiction should not rely on speculation beyond straightforward assumptions that it would be unreasonable to deny. It is reasonable, for example, to assume that an innocent witness would respond to the sight of a pool of blood. It is unreasonable to assume that witness would necessarily have fainted on the spot. Unless specific evidence is given that a witness faints at the sight of blood, in no way would the statement "I collected my wits and searched the murder scene closely" contradict the presence of a huge blood pool.

The "non-contradictory contradiction" is particularly insidious because a case's logic is transparent to the author. After all, the author reasons, "Witness X is clearly kind of timid and would faint, so why not point out the blood there?" Unfortunately, the player is not privy to the information that makes such a leap of logic "obvious."

Only break this rule if you explicitly state that the game is not demanding a contradiction. For example, in Vera Misham’s testimony in 4-4, a press conversation hints that the player should identify the magic troupe Vera loved so much. This is no contradiction, but the player is told what to look for. That said, it's unwise to abuse this technique, as a similar effect can be gotten by simply asking the player a straight question!

Exercise 6:

The following three prompts are supposed to be contradictions, but as written, they do not contradict. Rewrite the statements or the contradictions so that they are contradictions. The less editing, the better.
A wrote:The victim’s watch broke on impact! That tells us exactly when he died!
“Contradiction”: The watch may have broken before the victim hit the ground.
B wrote:Immediately after the murder, somebody at the scene called the police using a cell phone.
“Contradiction”: According to the Court Record, the crime scene has a phone booth. Since the detective does not clarify how he knows this, the called could have used the phone booth.
C wrote:The witnesses saw the defendant fire his gun twice.
“Contradiction”: Three bullet casings were found at the crime scene.
Be careful; there are multiple reasons why the third “contradiction” is not a contradiction. You can see our solution here.

07. Contradictions should be understandable both when they are presented and in hindsight.

This is another two-part rule. First, when the player presents the contradiction, make the reasoning clear. A player who can't understand one key step of a case's logic is liable to fall further behind as the rest of the case builds on the unclear presentation. Detailed beta testing reports can help detect this kind of "logical death spiral," but it's best to re-check all explanations for coherence before sending the case to testers. (Compare Ferdie’s Rule 13.)

The second part of this rule, however, trips up many fan authors. By the time the case is over, all contradictions should be explicable in hindsight. If the main character points out that victim was killed by a knife, and the autopsy report says he was shot, there'd better be a good reason for the discrepancy! Every contradiction needs a cause!

The number one problem with the cross-examinations written by new authors is that they are arbitrary and badly explained!

Why a contradiction exists, and why the player is expected to care is every bit as important as what the contradiction is! The following list of common reasons for contradictions, which draws on the work of Jean of mArc, should help you tease apart the reasons for your contradictions and eliminate unmotivated ones.

Reasons for contradictions:
When evidence and witness disagree, there are three possible explanations:
1) The witness's testimony has a problem.
2) The evidence has a problem.
3) Neither the witness nor the evidence have a problem, but the court's assumptions about the case do.

In addition, it's also possible for no contradiction to be present at all, and progress to require answering a question or simply gathering information.

Problems with the witness:
* The witness is mistaken for some reason.
Sometimes, the witness isn't lying, but wrong about the facts. This is the most-abused type of contradiction, and in unskilled hands, leads to a swarm of witnesses who "misremember" details for the sake of a puzzle. In real life, people make mistakes of memory and waste time, but in a game, mistakes must happen for an important reason. Usually, the mistaken impression or its cause changes the facts of the case.

For example, in 1-1, Frank Sahwit testifies mistakenly that the murder happened at 1 o'clock. The reason for this error is that he heard the victim's talking clock, which helps prove his guilt.

Another way a witness can be mistaken is via a flawed assumption that they treat as fact. In this case, the story advances when the defense attacks the assumption and either forces a new testimony or establishes sufficient doubt. For example, in 1-3, Wendy Oldbag testifies to the movements of Powers, but the security footage reveals that this assumption is unjustified. Note that this is not a direct contradiction, because the man could be Powers, but it buys time.

Be warned: "false assumption" contradictions can be unfair if the assumption being made is not clear. When in doubt, have the aide conversation suggest that what is needed is not a contradiction, but a possibility of error.

* The witness's lie contradicts the facts on some detail.
In every case, there comes a time when the player squares off against a lying witness. Peeling away the deception is a joy of the Ace Attorney franchise, but be careful! Skilled liars don't lie without cause, and stick as close to the truth as possible. It's hard to keep a complicated truth and a complicated fictional narrative in mind at the same time. When a witness takes the risk of perjury, it's usually because the truth would be deeply embarrassing or incriminating.

Frank Sahwit lies about hearing the time on the television to cover up this presence at the crime scene at the time of the murder. However, his lack of knowledge about the blackout trips him up. In a later case, Redd White claims that Mia dodged off to the left when attacked, a detail that's innocuous in itself, but clashes with his story of having been in the hotel at the time. What at first seemed like a mistaken impression ends up exposing his entire fictional narrative.

* The witness knows things they should not know.
This is a close relative of "the lie that contradicts the facts." In this case, the witness isn't caught by a false detail, but rather by a true detail that the witness had no legitimate means of knowing. The player must ask: "How did the witness know that?" A good game will give a reasonable answer, and one the player can use to solve the case.
For example, Frank Sahwit knows the murder weapon was a clock. Why? He heard it ring. How? Because he killed Cindy Stone with it!

* The witness omitted or denied a significant detail.
Sometimes, the witness fails to mention a clearly relevant fact. This sort of contradiction can force a new statement or an entire new testimony, but must be used with caution. Witnesses shouldn't conveniently "forget" details just to create a cheap puzzle. The witness may fail to see the relevance of the detail for some reason, or may have been coached to deliberately conceal it, but a reason for the omission must exist! Witnesses swear to tell "the whole truth," after all.

For example, Wendy Oldbag testifies in 1-3 that she would have seen any alternative suspects crossing her security checkpoint, but Phoenix punches a hole in her story using a photo, forcing her to testify in more detail.. The game doesn't trivialize her mistake. Though Oldbag's desire to appear competent and in-charge keeps her from admitting uncertainty, it also lands her in trouble.

In 1-5, Damon Gant tries to disassociate himself from the crime by denying a connection between the incidents in the Prosecutor's Office garage and the Evidence Room. The player must prove a connection to squeeze more testimony out of him.

* The witness was misinterpreted.
On rare occasions, a witness tells the absolute truth without error, but speaks in a way that appears to contradict the evidence. This may owe to a lapse in communication, but needs to be explained clearly in game. This happens in 4-3 when Lamiroir's limited command of English leads her to refer to a vent as a "window." Use this type of contradiction with care, since it obfuscates details without necessarily advancing the case.

Problems with the evidence:

* The evidence is falsified or flawed in some critical way.
Sometimes, the witness is accurate, but evidence is falsified or mistaken. For example, in 1-2, the possibility that Mia lived after she was struck contradicts the autopsy report... until Edgeworth "actualizes" it, earning Phoenix's ire. Be wary of this approach! False evidence undermines the player's trust, and it only takes one forgery to make the player hate a character.

Deliberate falsification is not necessary to create flawed evidence. For example, certain cleaning compounds can register as false positives in Luminol tests. Key details may be omitted by a corrupt prosecutor. Cross-contamination can mess up DNA results. But be wary of this approach, which quickly lapses into unfairness.

* A piece of evidence is being misinterpreted by the prosecution.
A less-abused and more elegant tactic than fake evidence is misinterpreted evidence. A photograph that seems incriminating may have an innocuous explanation. Perhaps the defendant was trying to pull out a blade from a corpse, rather than push it in - the camera couldn't tell the difference. Likewise, as 1-4 shows, the "sound of a gunshot" does not necessarily have to be the "sound of a murder."

But if the evidence has two possible interpretations, both need to be justified. Why would a false assumption be made about the evidence? Unless your prosecutor is purely evil, they should have been misled for a reason. How does the witness's statement overturn this false interpretation?

Warning: Do not assume that the player will interpret the evidence in the "false" way! A player who figures out the truth early may be frustrated by puzzles that require them to present "contradictions" that they've already mentally resolved. For example, if blood at the scene is presumed to come from the victim, and a witness says, "The victim never lost any blood," this is not really a contradiction if the player knows it was the killer's blood. When in doubt, make it clear that the player needs to contradict the prosecution's interpretation of the evidence.

* No problems with witness or evidence, but the underlying assumptions of both the defense and prosecution are wrong:
This class of contradiction is a close relative of "misinterpreted evidence," but goes deeper. Rather than the problem lying with a specific piece of evidence, some major assumption about the case itself is false! This could be the order of events, the location of the crime, the victim's identity...

For example, in 4-3, the crime is falsely assumed to follow a set of lyrics. A more elegant use of the "false interpretation of the entire scenario" appears in the Mask DeMasque-related testimony in "Turnabout Pairs," which I will not spoil here.

This is the hardest type of contradiction to craft well, and you may end up building an entire case around one of these. But when it works, it creates a kind of "turnabout" that no other contradiction can match. Again, be careful not to penalize the player if they get the answer early!

* Press-to-continue
Instead of pointing out a contradiction, the player must press statements to elicit additional information. In initial "detective" testimonies, it's common to require the player to press every statement in order to make sure they receive all the evidence they'll need later. In other cases, pressing every statement and getting nowhere raises the tension as the defense attorney grasps at straws. In either case, this is more of a "puzzle" than a contradiction. Pressing puzzles are discussed in the cross-examination section above, and won't be addressed again here.

Cases where the player must press to add a contradictory fact to the testimony aren't really a separate type of contradiction at all, but simply a different way to present one of the types listed above.

Exercise 7:

Come up with three different explanations for the following scenario: one in which there is a problem with the witness's statement, one in which the interpretation of the piece of evidence is flawed, and one in which the assumptions of the case are wrong. Then explain how this contradiction might be used to drive a case forward in combination with other details of your invention. In other words, if you say the "witness misremembered," you should also say why this is critically important. (I recommend using a more interesting explanation.)
The witness wrote:The defendant shot the victim at close range, splattering blood all over the victim's green shirt.
The evidence wrote:Red shirt: "Recovered from the victim's body after death. Powder burns consistent with this shirt having been worn by the victim when shot at close range."
The Assumption wrote:What the witness saw was the gunshot that killed the victim.
You can find some possible solutions here.

08. It ought be reasonable for players to know the relevant information and connect it with the situation.

To solve a contradiction, the player must know the relevant facts and apply them to the testimony. As Jean of mAarc argues in "Making More Challenging Contradictions", some contradiction puzzles rely strictly on facts in the Court Record, combined with reasonable assumptions and deductions. Others ask the player to remember details from earlier, and still others demand "real-world" knowledge. However, a well-written contradiction only hinges on facts that are reasonable for a player to know and offers a solid reason to connect that knowledge to the problem.

There are two clear ways to lapse into bad design here.

First, the designer may demand facts from the player that are neither "common knowledge" nor reasonably deducible from what's known in-game. Be especially wary of culture- or locale-specific facts! That water freezes when cold is common knowledge; that Mark Twain wrote Innocents Abroad is not. If you must include a puzzle about, say, chess, baseball, or the detective stories of Poe, be sure to refer to all necessary rules and trivia in the case itself, and do so before the puzzle. If a contradiction hinges on castling in chess, discuss it before the player can present the contradiction. If the information only comes out during a press conversation in that cross-examination, prevent the player from getting the contradiction until after the game tells them about castling. Remember not to penalize the player for knowing trivia you haven't yet told them, in accordance with Rule 6.

Two, the player may be privy to all the needed information, but see no reason to apply it. Perhaps the detail seems too irrelevant or pedantic, such as the distinction between a "spear" and a "polearm". Or perhaps a trivial concern is buried in a massive testimony upon a different subject. Either way, while misdirection is a valuable tool, it is dangerous to misdirect the player away from a point that is already subtle. (See Ferdie’s Rule 2, 14, and 16.)

Exercise 8:

Read over “Making More Challenging Contradictions,” and Jean's sample contradiction analyses, and then pick four more contradictions (two easy, and two hard) from fangames or canon to analyze in a similar manner. Note all the logical "pieces" (required facts, assumptions, and deductions) needed to solve those contradictions.

09. It ought be reasonable for the player character to announce the deduction.

Remember that the player is not only solving a mystery, but also reading a story. If the main character does something out-of-character or inappropriate, such as sabotaging their own case, the story suffers at the expense of the puzzle. While it's sometimes in-character for the defense to call out a contradiction by their own client, especially when failure to do so would simply cause the prosecution to point out the problem, be careful! A defense attorney who constantly hurts a client to "solve the mystery" is more likely to come off as incoherent, rather than as an impartial truth seeker. The player-character is not the player; the player-character is not playing a game. To the main character, every presentation has real consequences. Analogously, every argument not presented has real consequences. If there's an argument the prosecution or defense can make, they probably should!

Both case 1-5 and the Ace Attorney-esque visual novel Dangan Ronpa play on this rule brilliantly - though it would be a spoiler to say exactly how. Regardless, asking the player to decide whether or not to present a contradiction can tie together puzzle and story in a gripping way.

10. The contradiction ought have appropriate difficulty and be sufficiently varied.

Another two-part rule.

Well-designed games generally have smooth "difficulty curves." While a case may be easy or hard overall, the difficulty level will generally grow gradually from puzzle to puzzle. While it's okay to have a few "breather" puzzles of easier difficulty, the reverse - putting a crushingly hard puzzle in the middle of the game, surrounded by easy ones - is a recipe for disaster. To make matters worse, a designer can't evaluate puzzle difficulty with a clear eye. Only an "unspoiled" beta tester who has never seen a puzzle can give a clear estimate of its difficulty.

One solid difficulty curve to follow would be:

* Early game: Easy to medium, but not trivial. Include things for the player to do and figure out in the investigation segment.
* Mid-game: Medium to tough. Rise gradually, with possible temporary breather spaces. If an early puzzle is too hard, simplify. If a later puzzle is too easy, add misdirection.
* Endgame: Have the difficulty peak at the point where the case "all comes together." In some cases, this is where the suspect is accused. The player should need to see the problem from a new angle! However, after this point, gradually lower the difficulty so that the story keeps moving forward to the ending. The final puzzle should not require a huge amount of thought.

A few tips to bear in mind when considering difficulty:

Hard puzzles may force the player to see the same text repeatedly. If the player can easily fail and lose, an "auto-save" or "mercy mode" function can save a lot of grief. Even so, keep all repeated dialogue, especially presses, concise. A joke that is funny on the first failure is less so on the twentieth.

Easy puzzles may cause the player to "skim over" text, press responses, or even major ideas of the story. If a contradiction is simple, do NOT include key information in press statements the player may not bother with. If individual contradictions are trivial, but the overall mystery is not (a common problem in the canon games), the player may lose track of the larger plot, as there's been no real "test" of their comprehension.

Hard puzzles can make a story grind to a halt at a climactic point. If the player has already identified the culprit and had a dramatic confrontation, it is best for subsequent puzzles to be less frustrating. A climactic puzzle does not have to be tough to be satisfying! In 1-4, it's not hard to prove where the missing bullet went, but the stylish presentation sells the scene.

Easy puzzles may be out-of-character. It's one thing for the defense to point out an obvious detail the prosecution missed. It's quite another for them to do this ten times in a row, or to catch a supposedly competent prosecutor on a major mistake! There's a reason Winston Payne is usually the tutorial prosecutor. We can usually accept that he'd fail to see a simple answer. But if Miles Edgeworth doesn't notice that the body was shot, but the autopsy says "stabbed," players will balk.

Tutorial cases can have hard puzzles, but those should come near the end of the tutorial. 2-1 had a dubious difficulty curve in this regard, especially when you add the need for culturally specific knowledge about baseball gloves.

Poorly varied contradictions tend to be both boring and too easy. If all contradictions can be solved by referring to a flat, literal disagreement between the text in the Court Record and a witness statement, the player's interest will fizzle as the pattern grows obvious. Refer to Jean of mArc's guide Encyclopedia of Contradictions (a great source for puzzle ideas) to see whether all of your contradictions fall into the same heading, and vary them appropriately!

Exercise 9:

Read over “Encyclopedia of Contradictions.” Then, select four contradictions and find out what kind of contradictions they are. You can pick from canon or fangames. Do not use any of Jean of mArc’s examples.

Summation:

A good contradiction puzzle...
...will accept any reasonable answer, but no unreasonable ones.
...is comprehensible both when it is presented and when it is explained in hindsight, with all loose ends tied off before the game is finished.
...is reasonably solvable with the available relevant information by the player.
...has a solution that the player character can reasonably announce while remaining in-character.
...is appropriately difficult and sufficiently varied.

Grand Summation

A good cross-examination…
...is clearly motivated. We know why the characters are giving it.
...is economical, with no wasted frames.
...has solid puzzle design.
...is consistent with prior facts, characterization, and tone.
...has a purpose in the greater plot, and advances the mystery.

A good contradiction puzzle...
...will accept any reasonable answer, but no unreasonable ones.
...is comprehensible both when it is presented and when it is explained in hindsight, with all loose ends tied off before the game is finished.
...is reasonably solvable with the available relevant information by the player.
...has a solution that the player character can reasonably announce while remaining in-character.
...is appropriately difficult and sufficiently varied.

Credits:
Initial testing, rewriting, and expansion of Rule 10 by Ferdielance.
Final testing done by spd12.
Last edited by Enthalpy on Tue Apr 21, 2020 8:55 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Reason: Restored broken links.
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
TheDoctor
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 6:13 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English

Re: Cross-Examination and Contradiction Design

Post by TheDoctor »

Inspired use of Sebastian's theme in the example cases. :D This looks to be a very helpful guide.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know who started the super-objection phenomenon?
Image Image Image
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: Cross-Examination and Contradiction Design

Post by Enthalpy »

Blackrune in One Hell of a Turnabout, and a relatively reasonable use. Specific notes below:
Spoiler : :
It was used there to show how a witness shot herself in the back. Specifically, she put together a device to shoot her in the back to give herself an alibi. The specifics of the device are hinted through previous testimonies. The testimony made it clear what you needed to do, and the evidence to present was also clear. The main thing that testimony needed was hinting to recall the previous contradictions, and a way to start the player thinking about this particular puzzle.
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
Kroki
Admin
Posts: 7475
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:05 pm
Spoken languages: Français, English, Español, 日本語
Contact:

Re: Cross-Examination and Contradiction Design

Post by Kroki »

Do you have an example of a "traditional" super-objection? (like a gameplay test or something, not in context of a game)
ImageImage Image Image Image
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: Cross-Examination and Contradiction Design

Post by E.D.Revolution »

I have two things to comment (really, three):
  1. This is an excellent guide in how to design a contradiction. I don't have complaints, content-wise. I agree with most things.
  2. That being said, this guide is long and does not provide a way to easily jump to sections readers may want to read about again without having to scroll all the way down. Could you add in a gamefaqs-style navigation system, either by Table of contents (actually, include that) and a coding system so that readers can easily ctrl+f it (such as CRSX01 (cross examination, point 1), CONT06 (contradiction, point 6)).
  3. Could you add in something that deals with what I call "recursive contradiction"? This is an added technique for the CE techical guide for v6, but I do recall such a technique used in AA, perhaps 2-4 or even 3-3. The reason I'm asking you to do this is because my guide is not meant to cover how to write for one. For those not familiar with the technique, it's when revealed statements reveal a problem with an earlier statement in the same CE, as opposed to revealing a new problem. This can be tricky to write for due to rules of logic (assuming form is right, a logic statement is unsound if one or more premises is wrong) and dangers of logical fallacies.
Last edited by E.D.Revolution on Sat Jul 12, 2014 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Ferdielance
Posts: 778
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:46 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English

Re: Cross-Examination and Contradiction Design

Post by Ferdielance »

Do you have an example of a "traditional" super-objection? (like a gameplay test or something, not in context of a game)
Enth, I can make this, if you'd like! I think I can see a super-objection puzzle that requires relatively little context, is fair and playable, and lets us show the mechanics and how to do it PROPERLY.
Spoiler : puzzle :
We are given this scenario:

The victim was killed in their locked shop by an assassin. They keep the key to the front door on a table in the front room. They would never have let the assassin into the shop. The window to the shop was open, but covered with a grating. The bars of the grating are far enough apart that a person could reach through them. However, they are about ten feet away from the table where the key was sitting.

Before testimony:

Lawyer: "(How on earth did this guy get into the shop? I know this witness is the assassin...)"
Lawyer: "(...but the victim would NEVER have let him in!)"
Lawyer: "Let's think through the evidence..."
Lawyer: "The victim was killed with this knife...
Lawyer: "...but no prints were found on the knife or the key."
Lawyer: "We weren't able to get any fingerprints off the inside of these gloves..."
Lawyer: "...because the killer soaked them in this jar of alcohol."
Lawyer: "As the killer fled the scene, he knocked out another witness from behind..."
Lawyer: "...probably using the butt of that long, flexible staff he carries around."
Lawyer: "Near the scene, we found some items, but some of them might not even be relevant."
Lawyer: "There was an empty cardboard box..."
Lawyer: "...a ticket stub for a theater..."
Lawyer: "...a lost wallet..."
Lawyer: "...a long piece of plastic thread..."
Lawyer: "...a screw..."
Lawyer: "...a fishhook..."
Lawyer: "...and an aluminum can."
Lawyer: "I know this witness has a number of unique skills..."
Lawyer: "He's a champion gymnast, acrobat, watchmaker, knitter, fisherman, violinist, and magician."

Witness: "Are you done? There's no way I could have done this."
Witness: "Testimony:

*** No way I could have done this **

Witness: I couldn't have broken the door; it was undamaged.
Witness: Or are you saying I removed the window bars? Ridiculous.
Witness: I had no way to convince the victim to open the door, since he feared me...
Witness: ...and I had no way to get the key from the table, since it was out of reach.
Witness: Maybe I killed the victim outside? But there was no way to lure him out!

Lawyer: I need to PRESS the statement where the killer is lying... and then present ALL the relevant evidence, and no more.
Lawyer: The trick will be presenting only the necessary pieces of evidence...
Spoiler : The solution :
Press the statement "I had no way to get the key from the table."
Super-present the fishhook, the staff, and the plastic thread. Optional: May also present the killer's profile showing that one of the killer's skills is "fisherman." Optional: May also present the key. Optional: May also present the window.
"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
User avatar
Kroki
Admin
Posts: 7475
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:05 pm
Spoken languages: Français, English, Español, 日本語
Contact:

Re: Cross-Examination and Contradiction Design

Post by Kroki »

Wow, that seems quite redundant... :/
It is a bit like the logic in AAI, but to put it in a CE and without indications?... I really wouldn't like it as a player.
I think this is the sort of deduction for which the Thought Route in AA5 would come in handy!
ImageImage Image Image Image
User avatar
Ferdielance
Posts: 778
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:46 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English

Re: Cross-Examination and Contradiction Design

Post by Ferdielance »

Kroki:

Yes, it is kind of redundant. It has its uses, of course. If you absolutely want to make sure the player solves the problem without too much help, and the "trick" involved is unambiguous and has one clear solution, it's potentially workable. The Super-Objection in "One Hell of a Turnabout" is a real gem of a puzzle, and there's a decent one in Turnabout Pairs. But I don't think it's ever been done quite as well since.

In general, I agree that it's better to use a Thought Route (though those tend to have the opposite problem of being too simple, as we parodied in Phantasmagoria of Betrayal) or to break the problem down into a few steps, as Enthalpy recommends in the tutorial. Super-Objections can add a lot of difficulty/mind-reading without adding much fun. The one I give here is relatively fair, based on a quick test in the chatroom, but it could be handled more clearly by a question/answer setup. For example:
Spoiler : A better way :
Witness: "In that case, how'd I get into the room?"

Choice: "The victim let you in" ; "You broke in by force" : "You got the key."

Witness: "So how'd I do that?"

Choice: "By reaching in with your hand" "By stealing it and leaving a fake" "By using a tool"

Attorney: "The witness has a number of special skills..."
Attorney: "...and he used one of them to commit this crime!"
Attorney: "You made an object that let you get the key..."
Attorney: ...using these three pieces of evidence!"

By leading the player towards the general solution, then prompting them for a specific number of pieces of evidence, this puzzle design reduces frustration but still allows the player to give the solution without excessive prompting.
"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: Cross-Examination and Contradiction Design

Post by Enthalpy »

@ED:
1. Thank you.
2. This already exists. Just do a Control+F search on the relevant rule number.
3. I amended Rule 8 to talk about the importance of presenting information before it is used in a cross-examination. That should be sufficient.

@ Kroki: Thanks for waiting. I haven't had the time to make a demonstration of my own, as I've been busy with another project. I agree with everything Ferdie has written thus far.
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
123fendas
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2015 12:02 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: Svenska, English
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Cross-Examination and Contradiction Design

Post by 123fendas »

Yeah, I guess I really do suck... NPFW-3 was a failure, I had too many small super-objections... and I didn't have Apollo Justice in my case...
Spoiler : :
I QUIT!
Spoiler : :
Or do I? I might reconvene in the future.
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: Cross-Examination and Contradiction Design

Post by Enthalpy »

Remember, making solid cross-examinations and contradictions is hard. Don't give up, especially if it's because your case didn't have Apollo (what does that have to do with anything?), or you had a few bad cross-examinations.

The whole point of this guide wasn't to show that "some cases are bad," but to show ways you can improve your next case. Focus on following the advice of this guide, and the cross-examinations and contradictions of your next case will be much better!
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: Cross-Examination and Contradiction Design

Post by Enthalpy »

I've made a small update to the guide:

Rule 1 has been updated to emphasize that the characters need a motivation to call characters, and Rule 9 has been updated with the mirror idea that characters not making an argument can have consequences.
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
TheBlockedOcelot
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 10:53 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: United Kingdom, Northern Ireland

Re: Cross-Examination and Contradiction Design

Post by TheBlockedOcelot »

This is a great guide on how to make both a good Cross-Examination and Contradiction. It doesn't overstay its welcome, in my opinion, anyway. It even refers to how the player of the case may emote towards and/or think of the written subject.
Though, I will say. After reading this, I feel a lot more fearful of attempting to make a full case...
Hold it! I hate Ace Attorney.
GOTCHA! Just kidding!
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: Cross-Examination and Contradiction Design

Post by Enthalpy »

Cases are hard! Most authors have trouble with this in the beginning. I recommend that you spend a lot of time thinking about your cross-examinations and start off with a simple case, rather than an "epic" one.
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
User avatar
Enthalpy
Community Manager
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, limited Spanish

Re: Cross-Examination and Contradiction Design

Post by Enthalpy »

There's been a long overdue fix to several broken links in the tutorial and in the supplemental case.
[D]isordered speech is not so much injury to the lips that give it forth, as to the disproportion and incoherence of things in themselves, so negligently expressed. ~ Ben Jonson
Post Reply