Thank you for this! Me and Zekrom discussed and we're going to go with Option (B), though I don't think those revisions will take that long, especially since we've both got some free time on our hands the next few days. Will keep you posted.
I have to say though, I disagree with your framing of the timeline as indicative of the case's lack of polish. The short timeline was a constraint set at the beginning of the process that helped us set a reasonable scale and scope. Since we limited those at the start (something I lived and learned), I actually finished the framing by the end of March, and we spent the next month doing nothing but revisions and polishing... I even did a complete rewrite of the ending (post-Thought Route but pre-Not Guilty) for clarity's sake. We made a few touch-ups following the competition and showcased shortly thereafter once we were both happy with it. We weren't rushed at any point.
We waited a few months to seek out a feature to give time for feedback (and also for me to cool down post-ATCJ, lol), and we've made a handful of changes based on that. I know I might have a reputation for working slow, but when I have an idea I'm passionate about (and someone to do the stuff I'm bad at lol), I am capable of working fast, I swear!
A couple things about Check 2:
Spoiler : Check #2 :
Part One
- Consider shortening the pauses on the opening dialogue. It went by slowly for me.
It's timed to the music. - Intro graphic is pixelated.
Which one? The logo? - I thought Widget was made by Metis, so why does Athena say she made him? Am I mistaken on this?
This was a change by me. I plan on a soft-retcon of Athena's backstory, mainly just for the sake of not re-treading ground already covered by DD... also just because I'm not particularly invested in that backstory. So I made Athena the one who made Widget, just because I like that better lol
- F2016: Cykes's
- F2553: Cykes's
Wouldn't most people in conversation just say Cykes as the plural, and so Cykes' would be correct? "Cykes's" sounds unnatural to me when I say it aloud. - Phoenix should clarify how much of a gap there was bet
?
Spoiler : :
One question I want to pose because I don't want to make presumptions: Did you, as in the 'player' Enthalpy, like the case? Outside of the context of the review? I ask because I know ATCJ wasn't exactly your cup of tea, even after the changes to improve the flow of case logic. I have a hard time gleaning from this review how you personally felt about the case overall.
Something I'm growing to suspect, though it's entirely anecdotal, is that my cases aren't as well-received by the 'old guard' of AAO—those who were here back in the heyday when some of the more iconic cases were written. It's hard to tell, since both cases released during an era where frequent feedback/critique is rare, especially on the forums, but a trend I've noticed is that ATCJ and Ace of Turnabouts have always been more popular with the newer folks around here. Much of the feedback from older folks (primarily in the case of ATCJ, referring to the non-public betas of the final product) has leaned more negative, heavily criticizing/tearing apart the case logic and finding the narrative/character writing to be preachy and cloying. I contrast that with the feedback I've seen on reddit and discord, where many have said the case is punishing and counterintuitive at points, but given tons of praise to the narrative and character writing. While I haven't gotten as much critique on Ace of Turnabouts, the feedback from DJ/Awsome/others as well as what I've seen discussed on someone's YouTube video has all been incredibly positive as well.
Perhaps this is just selection bias, though. If critique/criticism is less common nowadays, meaning new people are less likely to play cases with a 'review' mindset, then I'm more likely to get positive feedback from newer folks than ones that come from a background where critique was front and center. I also respect your feedback immensely, especially given that you've been reviewing my cases for nearly 10 years at this point.
Point being, I'm not disputing your review, or disagree that changes should be made—just something I've been reflecting on in the wake of both releases. I agree with most of your suggestions, and we'll be working on some revisions based on that feedback. I really don't think it'll be too hard though: the case logic can be cleaned up easily, and I think the improvements to narrative/character will take place mainly at a few key points in the trial section, with maybe a few others throughout as I do a new playthrough. I agree wholeheartedly with both spots you mentioned... just changing Athena and Trucy's reaction to the whole motive situation will be a significant improvement.
You mentioned it a couple times, but I will say that this case goes in the complete opposite direction than ATCJ did, and that was intentional. While the narrative of ATCJ is grand, and the dialogue is heavy-handed, I wanted to be much more subtle with Ace of Turnabouts. Characters rarely muse about their feelings and opinions, certainly not effusively, and I tried to really go down the 'show not tell' route there. I'm glad you enjoyed the investigation. I've always preferred writing investigations to trials, as I prefer having time to spend with characters rather than the court gameplay, which imho often distracts from what I really care about. It's necessary to slow down the pace of the game, and of course I love the excitement and drama, but I really just want it there to forward the narrative and character interactions. This trial segment only manages to work because of Zekrom's fantastic job on the case logic/flow... tbh, the case wouldn't really exist otherwise, as it would be permanently stuck as a 'cool idea' in my head and nothing else.
With that, I'll also say I'm glad you were generally happy with the ending of the case! I will say that I wish we could have made it work to have the autopsy report be a final evidence present rather than the end of the thought route, but I'm glad you thought the thought route was effective. I think it does a good job tying together all the disparate points the defense has made throughout the trial, and the autopsy is like a final present even if it does occur during the thought route.
In terms of my part though, I'm a little disappointed that you thought the execution was off, especially during the trial. Just a few thoughts, especially toward your point about the relationship between character and trial structure:
Something I'm growing to suspect, though it's entirely anecdotal, is that my cases aren't as well-received by the 'old guard' of AAO—those who were here back in the heyday when some of the more iconic cases were written. It's hard to tell, since both cases released during an era where frequent feedback/critique is rare, especially on the forums, but a trend I've noticed is that ATCJ and Ace of Turnabouts have always been more popular with the newer folks around here. Much of the feedback from older folks (primarily in the case of ATCJ, referring to the non-public betas of the final product) has leaned more negative, heavily criticizing/tearing apart the case logic and finding the narrative/character writing to be preachy and cloying. I contrast that with the feedback I've seen on reddit and discord, where many have said the case is punishing and counterintuitive at points, but given tons of praise to the narrative and character writing. While I haven't gotten as much critique on Ace of Turnabouts, the feedback from DJ/Awsome/others as well as what I've seen discussed on someone's YouTube video has all been incredibly positive as well.
Perhaps this is just selection bias, though. If critique/criticism is less common nowadays, meaning new people are less likely to play cases with a 'review' mindset, then I'm more likely to get positive feedback from newer folks than ones that come from a background where critique was front and center. I also respect your feedback immensely, especially given that you've been reviewing my cases for nearly 10 years at this point.
Point being, I'm not disputing your review, or disagree that changes should be made—just something I've been reflecting on in the wake of both releases. I agree with most of your suggestions, and we'll be working on some revisions based on that feedback. I really don't think it'll be too hard though: the case logic can be cleaned up easily, and I think the improvements to narrative/character will take place mainly at a few key points in the trial section, with maybe a few others throughout as I do a new playthrough. I agree wholeheartedly with both spots you mentioned... just changing Athena and Trucy's reaction to the whole motive situation will be a significant improvement.
You mentioned it a couple times, but I will say that this case goes in the complete opposite direction than ATCJ did, and that was intentional. While the narrative of ATCJ is grand, and the dialogue is heavy-handed, I wanted to be much more subtle with Ace of Turnabouts. Characters rarely muse about their feelings and opinions, certainly not effusively, and I tried to really go down the 'show not tell' route there. I'm glad you enjoyed the investigation. I've always preferred writing investigations to trials, as I prefer having time to spend with characters rather than the court gameplay, which imho often distracts from what I really care about. It's necessary to slow down the pace of the game, and of course I love the excitement and drama, but I really just want it there to forward the narrative and character interactions. This trial segment only manages to work because of Zekrom's fantastic job on the case logic/flow... tbh, the case wouldn't really exist otherwise, as it would be permanently stuck as a 'cool idea' in my head and nothing else.
With that, I'll also say I'm glad you were generally happy with the ending of the case! I will say that I wish we could have made it work to have the autopsy report be a final evidence present rather than the end of the thought route, but I'm glad you thought the thought route was effective. I think it does a good job tying together all the disparate points the defense has made throughout the trial, and the autopsy is like a final present even if it does occur during the thought route.
In terms of my part though, I'm a little disappointed that you thought the execution was off, especially during the trial. Just a few thoughts, especially toward your point about the relationship between character and trial structure:
- Writing for Athena is difficult, and I'll confess that you aren't exactly wrong that her big 'self-doubt' moments are played up for drama and not really explored. Part of that, again, is a time constraint, but also just that I don't want to re-tread the same ground that DD already did. Nor do I want to treat it as a grandiose plot point for Athena to muse and ruminate about, as I think I might have done several years ago. Instead, I want to explore her anxiety & fear & self-doubt throughout her interactions with others and her growth as an attorney. I actually really enjoyed writing Athena as the protagonist, though my version might be slightly different from canon. She's much friendlier than your typical AA protag (canon or fangame), and gets along with others that have a similar demeanor (see: Trucy). She is filled with self-doubt and anxiety though, and she reacts poorly to criticism and is prone to embarrassment. This is often played as a joke, but we see it comes to fruition more seriously during the trial. She's less of a kicking booth than Phoenix or Apollo, and when she screws up, her blue text is more prone to beat herself up than defensiveness & sarcasm. She is desperate to prove herself for many reasons (her youth, her gender, whatever), and as a result she projects self-confidence. That isn't to say she's not a good lawyer—she clearly possesses legal skill, even if unrefined—but if she gets tripped up or realizes she's been arguing herself into a hole, that outer shell crumples and her effectiveness plummets. Again, though, her people skills are crucial to her success as a lawyer. She's able to break down that Marian is insecure & defensive, which allows her to see past the 'Scary Karen' act and (1) convince Marian into letting them investigate the kitchen, and (2) contradict Marian's testimony and show a potential path for the third person. She realizes that O'Reilly is projecting disdain and contempt because he's scared by the weight of his lies, which helps her unravel the truth of the encounter as well as get O'Reilly to admit his dishonesty. Maybe I could have done a better job displaying that during the trial, but even as written I don't think Marian or O'Reilly would be handled the same way by Phoenix/Apollo/generic lawyer. Indeed, as a prime example, we see a direct contrast between Apollo and Athena when handling O'Reilly. Both pursue holes in O'Reilly's testimony, but Apollo is more focused on explaining away the errors in logic and evidence, while Athena is more interested in exploring his emotions and reasoning. Which leads me to my next point:
- I think we also start to get insight into Apollo's character and the changes he's undergone to become a prosecutor. Apollo is strict and by-the-book. He outlines his case, he calls his witnesses, he structures their testimonies to build a coherent case. Other than the example you mention, he's not about tricks and traps and maneuvers. An early example is when Apollo objects as Athena tries to enquire about the motive. We get an option to either push back or let it slide, and the 'meta' tells us to push back. The Judge rules against us and we get some blue text about Apollo potentially setting up a trap. In actuality, though, Apollo is being genuine! He just wants to save the motive for a later testimony. Now, the way he reveals the motive is indeed one of his few traps, as we've discussed, but there's no reason Apollo has to delay setting up the trap. In fact, his case would probably more effective if he lets Athena start asking questions about it then! He could have sprang the trap more effectively, but his case isn't built around that. Later in the case, we see Apollo follow alongside Athena and even ask some questions of his own. He scolds witnesses if they're dishonest and seeks clarification about many of the same issues Athena raises. He references the bracelet, sometimes to Athena's benefit (though we should note that its power is inconsistent, mainly as a suspension of disbelief because Prosecutor!Apollo won't work if he always knows if a witness is lying.) Again, though, Apollo is concerned with the facts: he wants to clear up issues such that the evidence & testimony build a clear picture. He admits as much at the end of the trial... he may hate Phoenix, but he doesn't try and obfuscate the truth. This doesn't mean his philosophy doesn't have problems—it does, even if he isn't a 'dirty' prosecutor per se. But again, we set a constraint early on and this case just doesn't have the length and weight to do more than scratch the surface there.
- As I mentioned before, the role of Marian and O'Reilly is to further the story, and you're right, Marian/O'Reilly fall more in the 'forgettable AA side character' compared to memorable ones like Wellington or Andrews. But AA is filled with one-off characters that are ultimately just there to serve the plot... in fact, most of them probably fall into that category. Not all characters will, or even can, be complex and multi-dimensional. Where this frequently goes wrong for new authors is when those characters have no motivations whatsoever. Characters tell lies brazenly without any explanation, characters act certain ways just to get a reaction, so on and so forth. I don't think that's the case here! I've talked about O'Reilly already (and your suggestions, again are good), but consider Marian Jir: like I mentioned above, Marian is basically just 'Scary Karen' with extreme expectations, but that's a facade for her insecurity. Part of this is hidden in optional dialogue:
This is a reward for players who like to 'present everything' in the investigation, and it isn't critical knowledge to the case, but what Athena describes is exactly what ends up happening in Marian's CE. She testifies furiously in defense of her club... there's no way she could screw up so bad as to let someone sneak into her club's kitchen! Except, well, someone did, and then Marian crumples. It's short and sweet, perhaps a little underdeveloped, but I don't think absent character altogether.Spoiler : :Present Marian Jir to Ema
Athena: What's the deal with that manager?
Ema: Oh, Marian Jir?
Athena: She seems to be a massive perfectionist.
Ema: Yeah, she actually inherited this place from her father.
Ema: I guess she doesn't want people thinking she doesn't deserve it.
Athena: And the result of that is that she's unbearably strict and goes into a rage when things go wrong...
Athena: That way nobody can blame her.
Ema: Wow, it's almost as if you're some kind of psychologist.
Athena: Analytical psychology's got its perks!
Anyhow, I think that's enough rambling! Apologies if this comes off as defensive at any point—I just wanted to share my perspective on the case and some areas that I'm proud of & think deserve credit.