[T][CE] A Turnabout Called Justice ★

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

Moderators: EN - Forum Moderators, EN - Trial Reviewers

Post Reply
User avatar
drvonkitty
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:25 am
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T][CE] A Turnabout Called Justice ☆ (Finally released)

Post by drvonkitty »

No, unfortunately not. It is technically playable, but some SVG files won't show properly in Chrome. This means the perceive text doesn't appear, and you have to brute force it to find the tic. It also means the fades don't work properly, but that's not an issue with gameplay. I guess I could add a bypass to the perceive to make it playable on Chrome.
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: [T][CE] A Turnabout Called Justice ☆ (Finally released)

Post by Enthalpy »

Huh, I thought Chrome would have full SVG support by 2021. Oh well, Firefox it is!
[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: [T][CE] A Turnabout Called Justice ☆ (Finally released)

Post by Enthalpy »

Sorry to drag this out, but I'm getting "image not loaded" warnings on part one. Can you give this a check to make sure the images are still fine? I know that one of Trucy's built-in sprites isn't in AAO, so that's part of the red, but I doubt all of it.
[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
drvonkitty
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:25 am
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T][CE] A Turnabout Called Justice ☆ (Finally released)

Post by drvonkitty »

It's a casualty of the dropboxpocalpyse, unfortunately. The one set of things I wasn't able to recover was the mood matrix overload SVGs. Most of them are unused (I just never got around to removing them), but it does mean the mood matrix overload part doesn't have a visible blinking emotion. It's just a visual issue, though, as the section is fully playable. I can see if I can contact SK about recovering the files, and I'll go ahead and remove the unused ones now.

Edit: Oh, I just saw you said Part 1. I just went through and removed the only missing file I could find. Does it look correct now?

Edit edit: I think all the loading errors should be fixed now, let me know if not. Looks like it's just the tiny sliver caused by the Trucy sprite error.
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: [T][CE] A Turnabout Called Justice ☆ (Finally released)

Post by Enthalpy »

Work has been hectic, so I haven't had time for this. Apologies. This week should be the end of it, so I can play over the weekend.
[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
drvonkitty
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:25 am
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T][CE] A Turnabout Called Justice ☆ (Finally released)

Post by drvonkitty »

No worries, take your time!
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: [T][CE] A Turnabout Called Justice ☆ (Finally released)

Post by Enthalpy »

Update: I can actually get to the QA, and I finished the investigation this evening.
[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: [T][CE] A Turnabout Called Justice ☆ (Finally released)

Post by Enthalpy »

I'm not sure if this is a bug or intended.
Spoiler : :
In the third cross-examination, when I perceive the statement Trucy just added, Apollo points out Trucy's tic immediately, with no further player feedback. Is this intentional? I can believe that SK just wasn't able to make the graphics for this before no longer having time for the project, but I want to make sure.
[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
drvonkitty
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:25 am
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T][CE] A Turnabout Called Justice ☆ (Finally released)

Post by drvonkitty »

Enthalpy wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 7:16 pm I'm not sure if this is a bug or intended.
Spoiler : :
In the third cross-examination, when I perceive the statement Trucy just added, Apollo points out Trucy's tic immediately, with no further player feedback. Is this intentional? I can believe that SK just wasn't able to make the graphics for this before no longer having time for the project, but I want to make sure.
Yep, that’s intentional.
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: [T][CE] A Turnabout Called Justice ☆ (Finally released)

Post by Enthalpy »

This QA is going to be another weird one.
Spoiler : Part 1 of ??? :
I need a prelude before I can make the observation at the heart of my review; bear with me.

This trial is extremely similar to 6-2, The Magical Turnabout. I want to focus on one subtle differences: how they structure their trial logic. I've already discussed the structure of The Magical Turnabout at length as an exemplar of Yamazaki's trial-writing style. In his style
  • The prosecution's goal is to argue no "defendant innocent" theory exists, while the defense's goal is to construct such a theory.
    • Caveat: Once the defense has a plausible theory, they still need to prove it, but this is normally done by refining their alternate theory.
  • The topic of discussion is chosen not by the prosecution while trying to build a case with a single clear direction, but by the defense while trying to build a case by trying many directions
  • Key facts change frequently while the defense is trying out theories
  • Testimonies are not to tell a story about what a witness saw, but to position the defense to advance their theory development.
    • Testimonies can often be organized more effectively by asking "What obstacle is the defense trying to fight?" or "What theory is the defense trying to prove?" than "What is the witness testifying about?"
    • Topic changes are frequent
  • In these trials, it's rewarding to focus on the immediate problem the defense has and regard the events of previous cross-examinations as mental clutter.
Most of that is true also of A Turnabout Called Justice, but with two critical exceptions:
The topic of discussion is chosen not by the prosecution while trying to build a case with a single clear direction, but by the defense while trying to get enough information to come up with a theory by trying many directions
Testimonies can often be organized more effectively by asking "Who is the defense trying to interrogate?" than "What is the witness testifying about?"

More plainly, the testimonies of A Turnabout Called Justice are fishing expeditions. They start not because the defense has a theory they want to explore, but because we have a witness to question. They end not when we have ruled out some theory, but when we have learned whatever the witness is hiding. I did not figure that out until halfway through writing my previous, much more negative, draft of this review. The game I played was frustrating because I had no sense of making progress or why the defense was calling these witnesses. Making the defense strategy explicit would resolve both of these problems. Making these changes will require some rewriting throughout the case, but is not the massive restructure I was going to require for a QA.

You've told me over PM that you weren't interested in major changes, because you've already sunk a lot of time into this case. I understand you're working on a new case, and I respect your time management. Out of respect for my time management, I'm going to ask you to make a decision: would you be interested in making some changes to the case to clear this up? There's going to be some some more run-of-the-mill typos, presentation errors, and logic to tighten as well.

If you still want to pursue QA, I can offer some support for the rest of the QA process and can write out how my confusion came about and what can be done to fix it. I really want to see this featured. If you're not interested, I'm going to cut my time commitment here and wish you the best on your next 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
User avatar
drvonkitty
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:25 am
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T][CE] A Turnabout Called Justice ☆ (Finally released)

Post by drvonkitty »

Enthalpy wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:46 pm This QA is going to be another weird one.
Spoiler : Part 1 of ??? :
I need a prelude before I can make the observation at the heart of my review; bear with me.

This trial is extremely similar to 6-2, The Magical Turnabout. I want to focus on one subtle differences: how they structure their trial logic. I've already discussed the structure of The Magical Turnabout at length as an exemplar of Yamazaki's trial-writing style. In his style
  • The prosecution's goal is to argue no "defendant innocent" theory exists, while the defense's goal is to construct such a theory.
    • Caveat: Once the defense has a plausible theory, they still need to prove it, but this is normally done by refining their alternate theory.
  • The topic of discussion is chosen not by the prosecution while trying to build a case with a single clear direction, but by the defense while trying to build a case by trying many directions
  • Key facts change frequently while the defense is trying out theories
  • Testimonies are not to tell a story about what a witness saw, but to position the defense to advance their theory development.
    • Testimonies can often be organized more effectively by asking "What obstacle is the defense trying to fight?" or "What theory is the defense trying to prove?" than "What is the witness testifying about?"
    • Topic changes are frequent
  • In these trials, it's rewarding to focus on the immediate problem the defense has and regard the events of previous cross-examinations as mental clutter.
Most of that is true also of A Turnabout Called Justice, but with two critical exceptions:
The topic of discussion is chosen not by the prosecution while trying to build a case with a single clear direction, but by the defense while trying to get enough information to come up with a theory by trying many directions
Testimonies can often be organized more effectively by asking "Who is the defense trying to interrogate?" than "What is the witness testifying about?"

More plainly, the testimonies of A Turnabout Called Justice are fishing expeditions. They start not because the defense has a theory they want to explore, but because we have a witness to question. They end not when we have ruled out some theory, but when we have learned whatever the witness is hiding. I did not figure that out until halfway through writing my previous, much more negative, draft of this review. The game I played was frustrating because I had no sense of making progress or why the defense was calling these witnesses. Making the defense strategy explicit would resolve both of these problems. Making these changes will require some rewriting throughout the case, but is not the massive restructure I was going to require for a QA.

You've told me over PM that you weren't interested in major changes, because you've already sunk a lot of time into this case. I understand you're working on a new case, and I respect your time management. Out of respect for my time management, I'm going to ask you to make a decision: would you be interested in making some changes to the case to clear this up? There's going to be some some more run-of-the-mill typos, presentation errors, and logic to tighten as well.

If you still want to pursue QA, I can offer some support for the rest of the QA process and can write out how my confusion came about and what can be done to fix it. I really want to see this featured. If you're not interested, I'm going to cut my time commitment here and wish you the best on your next case.
Spoiler : :
It really depends on the scale of changes you're envisioning. I'm down to restructure some things and clarify and do anything like that, but I just don't have the energy to sink huge amounts of time into fundamental rewrites. If you think it's possible to revise without needing a huge investment and massive changes, then I would like to pursue the QA, as I'd also like to see the case featured. I am quite busy atm with real life obligations and the competition entry, but I should be able to find some time to work on this within reason.

On your interpretation of the case structure in ATCJ, I tend to agree with everything you've said. Overall, the case flows from (1) trying to prove Trucy didn't do anything wrong and disputing the prosecution's theory, (2) trying to prove Jane redrew the chalk lines, (3) trying to cast doubt on Castor as a potential culprit as well as his relationship to Trucy (and, by extension, Apollo), (4) trying to prove Castor committed the crime by orchestrating events in the theater and framing Trucy. The overall thread throughout is that the defense is really just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks and desperately trying to pursue any alternative to the prosecution's theory, which never really buckles under pressure. After all, Trucy redrawing the chalk lines is essentially enough to convict her at any point throughout the trial, and I wanted to the prosecution to bring that up frequently. I really wanted the player to feel the desperation that Apollo and Athena should be feeling as the trial proceeds.

My goal was for Jane to seem like a villain to anyone who takes a meta approach to the case (she appears at seemingly the final hour of the case, she has a clear potential motive, the music ramps up, etc). In his beta review, Ropfa went from suspecting Castor to Jane for those reasons, which I thought was some sign it worked, at least on a narrative level. (Of course, the entire segment with Jane is deeply flawed, as I'm sure we'll go on to discuss).

I wanted to turn that theory on its head by showing tension between it and the overall theme: using Apollo's arc and vision of justice to suggest that it's wrong for the defense to blindly accuse someone just to protect their client. Part of me wishes that I had shown Jane become more erratic and frightened as the pursuit went on, and I think that may be a feasible change worth discussing for the QA. Her character is one of the weakest in the whole trial, and there were some discussions of entirely redoing her character to make her more interesting that just never came to pass, as it would require new sprites + huge rewrites.

Ironically, the narrative tension acts almost as a repudiation of the Yamazaki approach you mentioned, critiquing the defense blindly jumping between theories and accusations. As you point out, though, the case structure is much more reminiscent of Yamazaki. A big piece of all this is my struggle to deal with case logic and, more broadly, the issue with trying to write such a grand case with minimal experience over the course of 7 years.

After Ferdie and Ropfa's reviews (which were overall positive but highly critical of the case logic), I strongly considered doing a full rewrite of the case, including revisions to the logic and structure. Ultimately, it just proved too immense a task: at this point, I've sunk hundreds upon hundreds of hours into this thing, and I just couldn't bring myself to go through that whole process again. Despite the flaws, I think the case excels in the areas I excel in: narrative, dialogue, and characters. My hope for this QA is that we can make adjustments in the case logic to make it passable enough for featured status, as (and obviously, I can't speak for you here) I think that's the most substantial obstacle it faces. Even if you aren't as sold on the narrative, which admittedly has its problems, I do think it stands relatively solidly in comparison to the current slate of featured trials.

Anyway, based on this, I'm assuming we'll be in this for the long haul, which I understand. I appreciate you putting in all this work, as I know it's a lot. I really do want to see this trial be featured.
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: [T][CE] A Turnabout Called Justice ☆ (Finally released)

Post by Enthalpy »

Okay, that's all useful context for me. I'll say that after the current case I'm working on (in between other AAO administration/development projects), the case I want to write touches on one of the themes you mentioned, but I don't want to spoil it this early in the development cycle.

Here's what I'm envisioning for the first part of the logic patchup.
Spoiler : Part 2 of ??? :
Courtroom Lobby
We enter into the lobby with both Athena and Apollo very nervous. Their client this time is Trucy, accused of the attempted murder of Phoenix Wright. The facts are that Phoenix was an assistant in a magic trick where Trucy pretended to cut a man in half with a buzzsaw. Trucy stopped the trick when she realized the saw was going through flesh, but the blood loss was enough to render Phoenix comatose. The police intended to mark the incident as accidental injury but not file charges, but Apollo and Athena, believing another party was at fault and not wanting Trucy to have to deal with guilt, found that chalk lines had been moved one foot from where they were supposed to be. These chalk lines altered where the saw went down, so suggest homicide. As a result, charges are filed.
It still isn't clear to me how moving the chalk lines led to the injury. How was Trucy supposed to know where to make the cut, and how did moving the chalk lines cause her to draw blood? I think Fell's diagram could be a good way to get this across.

Trucy appears to be holding up well, but a swarm of reporters enter the lobby and upset her.

Part One
Franziska gives her opening statement. It is a very good description of events surrounding the crime, but mentions almost nothing about events on-stage. She tells Apollo that while she cannot claim personal perfection, she can in the courtroom, calling this "perfect justice."
It isn't clear to me how this Franziska as prosecutor differs from canon Franziska as prosecutor, apart from giving speeches about "perfect justice".

After some slapstick, Julius Fell takes the stand. Fell is the lead detective and views his job as one of following protocols, due to past childhood trauma, with no greater purpose. Fell explains the way the trick was supposed to work, including a helpful diagram. He then offers a photograph of Trucy changing the chalk lines. According to the defendant, she did this because the lines were smudged. Franziska rejects this as too convenient, but says even then, that would only reduce the charges to "criminal negligence".
Franziska makes a point that Apollo and Athena were the ones to bring this case to court. I don't understand how this is relevant to Franziska's point of "she is accused of a crime and likely to lie to explain away damning evidence". Franziska emphasizes this, and this is what Apollo focuses on, but I don't see how that detail matters. On top of that, Julius calls the photo a "key piece of evidence," but among the many other pieces of evidence presented and Franziska saying "perfect case", it's easy to miss that the photo is the lynchpin of the prosecution's case.

My first recommendation is that the part where the photo gets introduced gets rewritten. Franziska needs to say explicitly something to the effect of, "Whoever moved the chalk line is the culprit. This proves that Trucy moved the chalk lines" and make that the emphasis of her "perfect case" speech. This makes her case clearer, both making it feel more threatening and making it easier to keep the basics of the case. After this, Apollo can object: (1) she can't prove Trucy had murderous intent, and (2) maybe some other person interfered with the lines later. Franziska responds that the defense needs proof... Which Apollo doesn't have. (Franziska may also point out that if the lines were a foot off, that's too large to believably be a mistake.) Again, this makes the situation feel more threatening and makes the basics of the case easier to keep in mind. Also very importantly, by making the burden of the defense crystal clear, we can have very smooth transitions to all the remaining testimonies. More on that when the time comes.


Franziska calls Castor to the stand to testify about the photo. Castor testifies that he took the photograph of Trucy, to "test the lighting" while he was adjusting them.
Why he needed a photograph wasn't obvious to me, but could be cleared up in a press conversation. He wanted reference photos so he doesn't second-guess himself later, or some such.

He claims he took the photographs while in the control booth, but Apollo proves that he was instead in the recording booth. When asked to explain, Castor gives a second testimony where he complains about problems in the theater. When Apollo cross-examines, he learns quite a few facts which will become important later, and Castor uses the opportunity to villainize the defense and give Trucy a motive.
Even in hindsight, I don't know why he lied about where he took the photo. Apollo suggests it was a trap by Franziska, but she seems surprised by the contradiction, too. He may want to protect the theatre, but all he needs to say is that he needed to check the lighting from the place where the recording cameras were. I think he created a minor contradiction on purpose to give himself an occasion to talk about the state of the theatre, to mention Trucy was nervous about the trick, to incriminate her. However, this strikes me as a very weak argument against Trucy, too weak to justify the cross-examination. It's an extremely dangerous trick, of course she'd be nervous! What makes this worse is that this point about Trucy's nerves drives the cross-examination after this, too.

My second recommendation is that after Castor testifies, Franziska draws some more information out of him to make Trucy look worse, before Apollo starts pressing. This leverages my first recommendation: whatever this information is, Franziska plays it to show murderous intent. This makes the relevance of the testimony clearer. This cleans up the logic around the next testimony, raises tension, and cements the core of the case logic: did Trucy have murderous intent? Was there another person who changed the lines?


Intense pressing gets nowhere, and Franziska lambasts the Wright Anything Agency, saying their conduct was Trucy's motive. Apollo and Franziska bicker about Franziska's conduct, but Athena decides to conduct a Mood Matrix. Franziska agrees.

Although Franziska does conclude that Trucy was nervous because of the murder plot, she emphasizes personal attacks against the Anything Agency, and that's what Apollo responds to, as well. The focus needs to be on Trucy's supposed nervousness, because that is what motivates the following testimony. I was talking with Ferdielance, and he had a good suggestion on this score. My third major recommendation is the bold part, and I leave the rest to your discretion.
Ferdielance wrote:Apollo could say that if the prosecution wants to make a case out of Trucy's nerves and motives, then that deserves a full testimony. What really got her so nervous?
So instead of "testify about the events of that night,"
it would be "describe the events that led to your mental state."
This would also be more emotionally intense - Trucy's grappling with her emotions is made the explicit motivation for the testimony.

Possibility:
Apollo starts to waver: (Can I really push her on this?)
Apollo: "Maybe there's something else that we could -"
Franziska: "No. She will see this through to the end!"
In other words, Franziska could start demanding that Trucy take responsibility for her emotions, continuing the psychodrama.
(Otherwise, I just can't see her allowing this testimony at all!)
I think it would be stronger to have her say:
"One way or another, I will not allow the defendant to run away from this."
"The defense started this 'therapy session.' I expect them to see it through!"
"...whether or not they like what they find."


It may also be valuable for Apollo to monologue to himself that he needs more testimony to find the proof he's looking for, and this seems the easiest way to get some.


Apollo discovers that Trucy blames herself for the accident. After reassurance from Athena, she begins her testimony about actual reasons why she was nervous. During the course of this, it comes out that Phoenix began to tell her about Lamiroir being her mother. When Trucy mentions this, Apollo faints.

I couldn't tell why Trucy was giving this testimony when I first played through the case, and even when I read the script afterwards. This won't be a problem anymore after recommendation three.

Courtroom Lobby
Apollo faints, but reawakens in the courtroom lobby. Apollo is confused about how to emotionally respond to the news, and then Lamiroir appears. Before she can say much, Franziska arrives to shout Lamiroir out of the lobby.
Franziska is clearly projecting her own parent issues onto the situation.
Let me know if this is the scale of things you could work with.

Before I continue on to the next part, I do need some plot points clarified:
Spoiler : :
Did Trucy know Lamiroir/Thalassa was in the studio? If not, how did her brooch get into the front few rows? If so, why didn't Trucy tell us?

In Lamiroir's first testimony, she says she didn't go deep into the theater. Does that mean she entered the building but not the auditorium where the rehearsal was occurring? Does that mean she did enter the auditorium, but so far back that Thalassa couldn't see her?

Narratively, how do you want to play Lamiroir? Your script does have her giving false testimony to protect herself at her oown daughter's trial for attempted murder. Is this something you want to keep? Is this something you want to draw attention?
[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
drvonkitty
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:25 am
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T][CE] A Turnabout Called Justice ☆ (Finally released)

Post by drvonkitty »

All of this looks manageable. Hopefully I'll have some time to start going through and patching things up. Responses to everything in green.
Enthalpy wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:58 am
Spoiler : Part 2 of ??? :
Courtroom Lobby
We enter into the lobby with both Athena and Apollo very nervous. Their client this time is Trucy, accused of the attempted murder of Phoenix Wright. The facts are that Phoenix was an assistant in a magic trick where Trucy pretended to cut a man in half with a buzzsaw. Trucy stopped the trick when she realized the saw was going through flesh, but the blood loss was enough to render Phoenix comatose. The police intended to mark the incident as accidental injury but not file charges, but Apollo and Athena, believing another party was at fault and not wanting Trucy to have to deal with guilt, found that chalk lines had been moved one foot from where they were supposed to be. These chalk lines altered where the saw went down, so suggest homicide. As a result, charges are filed.
It still isn't clear to me how moving the chalk lines led to the injury. How was Trucy supposed to know where to make the cut, and how did moving the chalk lines cause her to draw blood? I think Fell's diagram could be a good way to get this across.
The position of the box had to line up with the chalk lines in order to prevent the saw from hitting Phoenix. There's a middle area of the box that's empty, as the two sections (for the "legs" and the "head") are curved. This should be easily cleared up with an extra line or two during Fell's explanation of the case.
Trucy appears to be holding up well, but a swarm of reporters enter the lobby and upset her.

Part One
Franziska gives her opening statement. It is a very good description of events surrounding the crime, but mentions almost nothing about events on-stage. She tells Apollo that while she cannot claim personal perfection, she can in the courtroom, calling this "perfect justice."
It isn't clear to me how this Franziska as prosecutor differs from canon Franziska as prosecutor, apart from giving speeches about "perfect justice".
I think the changes in Franziska's character are subtle, but she's definitely different. She's not as whip-happy as before, nor is she stringing along "fool fool fool" anymore. She's matured a lot, and she's also been knocked down a peg: the events of the trilogy and investigations series have made her significantly less confident in herself and her "perfection." She's come to accept that she is necessarily imperfect, but she still wants to be a "perfect" prosecutor. That's the idea behind her perfect justice mantra--she's going to run airtight, flawless cases that catch criminals. It's similar to Manfred, but without the dirty tactics... or at least, so she thinks. As you point out, her issues with her father start to cloud her judgement, and she begins to resort to dirtier and dirtier tactics. Tbh, I might tone down some of her grandstanding pre-Thalassa reveal, as I don't think it makes too much sense in the context of her character arc.
After some slapstick, Julius Fell takes the stand. Fell is the lead detective and views his job as one of following protocols, due to past childhood trauma, with no greater purpose. Fell explains the way the trick was supposed to work, including a helpful diagram. He then offers a photograph of Trucy changing the chalk lines. According to the defendant, she did this because the lines were smudged. Franziska rejects this as too convenient, but says even then, that would only reduce the charges to "criminal negligence".
Franziska makes a point that Apollo and Athena were the ones to bring this case to court. I don't understand how this is relevant to Franziska's point of "she is accused of a crime and likely to lie to explain away damning evidence". Franziska emphasizes this, and this is what Apollo focuses on, but I don't see how that detail matters. On top of that, Julius calls the photo a "key piece of evidence," but among the many other pieces of evidence presented and Franziska saying "perfect case", it's easy to miss that the photo is the lynchpin of the prosecution's case.


My first recommendation is that the part where the photo gets introduced gets rewritten. Franziska needs to say explicitly something to the effect of, "Whoever moved the chalk line is the culprit. This proves that Trucy moved the chalk lines" and make that the emphasis of her "perfect case" speech. This makes her case clearer, both making it feel more threatening and making it easier to keep the basics of the case. After this, Apollo can object: (1) she can't prove Trucy had murderous intent, and (2) maybe some other person interfered with the lines later. Franziska responds that the defense needs proof... Which Apollo doesn't have. (Franziska may also point out that if the lines were a foot off, that's too large to believably be a mistake.) Again, this makes the situation feel more threatening and makes the basics of the case easier to keep in mind. Also very importantly, by making the burden of the defense crystal clear, we can have very smooth transitions to all the remaining testimonies. More on that when the time comes.

All good suggestions, and they should be relatively simple to implement. For context, everything pre-Thalassa reveal was written in 2014, and it shows. A lot of that section was haphazardly thrown together, and it never really got the attention it needed later, as I was focused on the rest of the trial. Cleaning it up (and contextualizing the importance of the chalk line redrawing photo) should be a big improvement.
Franziska calls Castor to the stand to testify about the photo. Castor testifies that he took the photograph of Trucy, to "test the lighting" while he was adjusting them.
Why he needed a photograph wasn't obvious to me, but could be cleared up in a press conversation. He wanted reference photos so he doesn't second-guess himself later, or some such.
Sure, will do.
He claims he took the photographs while in the control booth, but Apollo proves that he was instead in the recording booth. When asked to explain, Castor gives a second testimony where he complains about problems in the theater. When Apollo cross-examines, he learns quite a few facts which will become important later, and Castor uses the opportunity to villainize the defense and give Trucy a motive.
Even in hindsight, I don't know why he lied about where he took the photo. Apollo suggests it was a trap by Franziska, but she seems surprised by the contradiction, too. He may want to protect the theatre, but all he needs to say is that he needed to check the lighting from the place where the recording cameras were. I think he created a minor contradiction on purpose to give himself an occasion to talk about the state of the theatre, to mention Trucy was nervous about the trick, to incriminate her. However, this strikes me as a very weak argument against Trucy, too weak to justify the cross-examination. It's an extremely dangerous trick, of course she'd be nervous! What makes this worse is that this point about Trucy's nerves drives the cross-examination after this, too.

My second recommendation is that after Castor testifies, Franziska draws some more information out of him to make Trucy look worse, before Apollo starts pressing. This leverages my first recommendation: whatever this information is, Franziska plays it to show murderous intent. This makes the relevance of the testimony clearer. This cleans up the logic around the next testimony, raises tension, and cements the core of the case logic: did Trucy have murderous intent? Was there another person who changed the lines?

I like this suggestion, and again, shouldn't be too hard to implement. Franziska's case should feel clinical and planned, after all.
Intense pressing gets nowhere, and Franziska lambasts the Wright Anything Agency, saying their conduct was Trucy's motive. Apollo and Franziska bicker about Franziska's conduct, but Athena decides to conduct a Mood Matrix. Franziska agrees.
Frankly, cutting this section altogether might be wise, in keeping with my discussion of Franziska's arc earlier.
Although Franziska does conclude that Trucy was nervous because of the murder plot, she emphasizes personal attacks against the Anything Agency, and that's what Apollo responds to, as well. The focus needs to be on Trucy's supposed nervousness, because that is what motivates the following testimony. I was talking with Ferdielance, and he had a good suggestion on this score. My third major recommendation is the bold part, and I leave the rest to your discretion.
Ferdielance wrote:Apollo could say that if the prosecution wants to make a case out of Trucy's nerves and motives, then that deserves a full testimony. What really got her so nervous?
So instead of "testify about the events of that night,"
it would be "describe the events that led to your mental state."
This would also be more emotionally intense - Trucy's grappling with her emotions is made the explicit motivation for the testimony.

Possibility:
Apollo starts to waver: (Can I really push her on this?)
Apollo: "Maybe there's something else that we could -"
Franziska: "No. She will see this through to the end!"
In other words, Franziska could start demanding that Trucy take responsibility for her emotions, continuing the psychodrama.
(Otherwise, I just can't see her allowing this testimony at all!)
I think it would be stronger to have her say:
"One way or another, I will not allow the defendant to run away from this."
"The defense started this 'therapy session.' I expect them to see it through!"
"...whether or not they like what they find."


It may also be valuable for Apollo to monologue to himself that he needs more testimony to find the proof he's looking for, and this seems the easiest way to get some.

Good suggestions--good ol' Ferdie, huh? I think another distinct part here is the way that Franziska sees part of herself in Trucy and lashes out against her because of that fact. This is a good way to start sowing the seeds of that.
Apollo discovers that Trucy blames herself for the accident. After reassurance from Athena, she begins her testimony about actual reasons why she was nervous. During the course of this, it comes out that Phoenix began to tell her about Lamiroir being her mother. When Trucy mentions this, Apollo faints.

I couldn't tell why Trucy was giving this testimony when I first played through the case, and even when I read the script afterwards. This won't be a problem anymore after recommendation three.

Courtroom Lobby
Apollo faints, but reawakens in the courtroom lobby. Apollo is confused about how to emotionally respond to the news, and then Lamiroir appears. Before she can say much, Franziska arrives to shout Lamiroir out of the lobby.
Franziska is clearly projecting her own parent issues onto the situation.Yep!
Before I continue on to the next part, I do need some plot points clarified:
Spoiler : :
Did Trucy know Lamiroir/Thalassa was in the studio? If not, how did her brooch get into the front few rows? If so, why didn't Trucy tell us?
No, she didn't. One aspect of stages tends to be that the bright lighting on the stage means it's too dark to barely see anyone in the crowd, so the implication is that Thalassa was lurking in the auditorium as she watched the rehearsal. I should probably explicitly state this.
In Lamiroir's first testimony, she says she didn't go deep into the theater. Does that mean she entered the building but not the auditorium where the rehearsal was occurring? Does that mean she did enter the auditorium, but so far back that Thalassa couldn't see her?
See above. She lied about not going deep into the theater.
Narratively, how do you want to play Lamiroir? Your script does have her giving false testimony to protect herself at her oown daughter's trial for attempted murder. Is this something you want to keep? Is this something you want to draw attention?
The real reason for Thalassa to lie is to protect Trucy from the eventual reveal that the saw was off, which makes her look really bad (why would the murder weapon specifically be off in the final rehearsal)? I think this was an old suggestion meant to strengthen Thalassa's reason for lying, but frankly, I think you're right: it kind of diminishes her role in protecting Trucy. Should be easy enough to cut outright.
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: [T][CE] A Turnabout Called Justice ☆ (Finally released)

Post by Enthalpy »

Okay, yes, all good character choices. That'll tweak the next set of recommendations. There'll probably be one more recommendation post tomorrow, but I think it's worth making sure you still agree with me this far.
Spoiler : :
Part Two
Court resumes, and Franziska argues that the revelation about Lamiroir is a motive for Trucy. Apollo says that it's too early to call for a verdict, claiming that Thalassa's brooch on the ground puts her at the crime scene, and Brushel let her in. There's another witness to hear from!
The transition from Trucy's previous testimony to this one is abrupt. One reason is because the story doesn't even feel closed. It wasn't clear to me whether Phoenix told her about Thalassa or not. I think not, but have to guess. That's another easy fix. The other reason is because the case logic is discontinuous. We had just been talking about Trucy's nerves and the Thalassa reveal, and now we switch to another person being at the theatre.

Recommendation four is one of the more involved ones. I recommend that Apollo take a different train of logic to bring Lamiroir to the scene. The judge asks if anything important changed for the defense, and Apollo says there's one thing that doesn't sit right with him... Why was Phoenix going to tell Trucy this now? Surely Trucy had enough on her mind. Then we go through:

Maybe it couldn't wait. ->
Lamiroir was going to be there. ->
(Now we rejoin the current logic) Brooch photograph to prove she was there early ->
Brushel to explain how she got on scene

This makes this stretch of logic less a matter of guesswork.

This is also probably where you want Trucy to say the lighting was so bad, she could have easily missed Lamiroir. You said bright lighting was the reason, but remember that it's a plot point with Jane that the place was dark for a good part of the rehearsal.

Lastly, we don't hear much about why Lamiroir being at the scene is important. You can make it very clear why the court cares by having Apollo point out that Lamiroir can testify to whether she saw anybody besides Trucy tampering with the chalk lines. That brings us right back to the recommendation one reframing, so this should be extra clear.


Thalassa is brought to the stand, much to Franziska's displeasure. She testifies to "not going anywhere deep into the theatre", but thinking Phoenix must have dropped her brooch. Apollo objects that Phoenix changed clothes, so no she had to have dropped the brooch.
This isn't a contradiction at present, but it's an easy fix. What you need is to establish that Castor made him change clothes before he got anywhere near stage.

There's also one optional recommendation I have here: have Apollo get fixated on why Lamiroir is hiding so much, and the possibility that Lamiroir (like in 4-3) witnessed something that'll turn the case on its head. The first makes the reveal that Lamiroir was trying to protect Trucy all the more devastating. (Especially with the Franziska changes you mentioned!) The second makes it very clear why the defense is pursuing this route. At present, you just focus on "gotta learn her secret!", so the two points I mention get lost.


Lamiroir admits to going deeper in the theatre, saying she lied about it to keep herself from suspicion and prevent Trucy from thinking she wanted to steal her tricks.
This creates doubt as to Lamiroir's motives. If you take the above recommendation, you can use this.

She mentions nothing immediately useful, but doesn't report a mysterious other person in the room.
It's probably worth having Franziska point this out.

With the help of the Mood Matrix, Apollo squeezes from her that the buzzsaw was off during practice. He tries to press harder, but by this point, Franziska is getting frustrated and wants something concrete from the defense, triggering a logic segment in which Apollo devises a theory: Jane, the assistant, moved the lines when she was shuffling about on-stage. This could have happened even before the saw trick, because the saw was powered off.

This is enough to justify calling Jane to the witness stand. Before he can do so, Franziska objects that she wants the defnese to prove something, and Athena objects that they're not done with Lamiroir. Apollo takes a non sequitur and says there's a contradiction in the testimony that addresses both concerns. With a new mechanic, he points out a timeline discrepancy: the trick was moved from the last half to the first half. Lamiroir reveals she knew, but concealed this to keep suspicion off Trucy. Franziska says this behavior is just further evidence of Trucy's guilt, and her impatience to kill Phoenix.

There are a few issues here.
1. That the saw was "off" is ambiguous. It could mean "powered off" or "something seemed unusual about it." I think you mean "powered off," but I'm not sure. Still, this is an easy fix.
2. It isn't clear how relevant this story about Jane is. Even if she smudged the chalk lines, that won't move them an entire foot.
3. The transition to and from the segment with the timeline is awkward, both logically (what does this have to do with the suspicion on Jane?) and emotionally (we're still at a high because we have a suspect).
4. While Franziska argues that moving the order of the trick suggests impatient bloodlust, it isn't clearly incriminating to Trucy. This makes Apollo's reaction seem contrived, as well as Lamiroir's lying about it.

1 is an easy fix, and 2 is an opportunity more than a problem. Since accusing Jane is a fake solution, just break out this argument when the time comes to suggest she isn't the actual culprit.

To deal with the last two points, here's major recommendation five: reorder events so that after the Mood Matrix, Franziska points out that this is now the second time Trucy has been seen acting suspiciously about the trick. First, we have Castor saying she appeared exceptionally nervous about it, and now, Trucy authorized the buzzsaw to be off during rehearsal? Apollo can object that's circumstantial, but Franziska's argument is enough to give Lamiroir some more noise. That prompts Apollo to press further and find the timeline problem. Franziska points out that this is the third time Trucy has been seen acting suspiciously about the trick, and this, Apollo can't defend so easily. It's only at this point that we have the logic minigame, and that we drag Jane to the stand. The way Apollo sees this, it's a last chance to come up with something.

(I'll add that I don't the like logic minigame or the way you present the timeline contradiction, but I'm not going to insist on changes, given the time that doubtless already went into the custom mechanics)


Jane is brought to the stand. She has some disdain for Trucy, born of envy. She is quite nervous, but denies wrongdoing. After pressing, she reveals she lost her lucky choker necklace, which gives her courage. Apollo follows Franziska's mockery and suggests the witness was so cared of the dark (brought about by Castor's lighting), that she smudged the lines.

We have the next testimony, where Jane admits to lying and that she may have smudged lines, but also talks about the search for her choker. Apollo observes that she seemed a bit happy this time around and suggests it may have been about the part where Trucy helped search.
I think it would be good to have Jane give a clue that the cause of the emotion was Trucy, after Apollo identifies the emotion. Every other time she's mentioned Trucy, it's been less than pleasant. I leave the details up to you, but if this is a nervous witness, she could easily say something she didn't mean to.

Athena is furious because this trashes Jane's motive, but Apollo stays the course. At the last moment, Trucy volunteers that she was helping Jane search for her choker, after rehearsal. She didn't mention this earlier because she promised Jane to stay silent. From this, Apollo points out the problem: this seems to gives her an alibi for the photo. Trucy clarifies it must have been taken right after rehearsal, and then Apollo points out that if the two of them went searching, this gives Castor a perfect opportunity to tamper with the lines.
This is another minor change, but I'd downgrade the present of the "Photo of Trucy" from "major contradiction" to "ask the witness to clarify about this piece of evidence". We don't know when it was taken yet. If Franziska hasn't mentioned by now that this makes shuffling of Jane's irrelevant, now she really needs to. This will just put attention on Apollo's accusation of Castor.

Also, Brushel might have been able to mess with the lines, but I agree Castor is far most likely.

[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
drvonkitty
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:25 am
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T][CE] A Turnabout Called Justice ☆ (Finally released)

Post by drvonkitty »

Same deal as before, responses green.
Enthalpy wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:43 am
Spoiler : :
b]Part Two[/b]
Court resumes, and Franziska argues that the revelation about Lamiroir is a motive for Trucy. Apollo says that it's too early to call for a verdict, claiming that Thalassa's brooch on the ground puts her at the crime scene, and Brushel let her in. There's another witness to hear from!
The transition from Trucy's previous testimony to this one is abrupt. One reason is because the story doesn't even feel closed. It wasn't clear to me whether Phoenix told her about Thalassa or not. I think not, but have to guess. That's another easy fix. The other reason is because the case logic is discontinuous. We had just been talking about Trucy's nerves and the Thalassa reveal, and now we switch to another person being at the theatre.

Recommendation four is one of the more involved ones. I recommend that Apollo take a different train of logic to bring Lamiroir to the scene. The judge asks if anything important changed for the defense, and Apollo says there's one thing that doesn't sit right with him... Why was Phoenix going to tell Trucy this now? Surely Trucy had enough on her mind. Then we go through:

Maybe it couldn't wait. ->
Lamiroir was going to be there. ->
(Now we rejoin the current logic) Brooch photograph to prove she was there early ->
Brushel to explain how she got on scene

This makes this stretch of logic less a matter of guesswork.

This is also probably where you want Trucy to say the lighting was so bad, she could have easily missed Lamiroir. You said bright lighting was the reason, but remember that it's a plot point with Jane that the place was dark for a good part of the rehearsal.

Lastly, we don't hear much about why Lamiroir being at the scene is important. You can make it very clear why the court cares by having Apollo point out that Lamiroir can testify to whether she saw anybody besides Trucy tampering with the chalk lines. That brings us right back to the recommendation one reframing, so this should be extra clear.

Seems like a good recommendation. As you said, it's a little involved. Part of the problem is that the editor is really laggy at this point (in hindsight, it really should have been split into a third part), so it's clunky to edit anything anymore. But I reckon I can make this work.
Thalassa is brought to the stand, much to Franziska's displeasure. She testifies to "not going anywhere deep into the theatre", but thinking Phoenix must have dropped her brooch. Apollo objects that Phoenix changed clothes, so no she had to have dropped the brooch.
This isn't a contradiction at present, but it's an easy fix. What you need is to establish that Castor made him change clothes before he got anywhere near stage.

There's also one optional recommendation I have here: have Apollo get fixated on why Lamiroir is hiding so much, and the possibility that Lamiroir (like in 4-3) witnessed something that'll turn the case on its head. The first makes the reveal that Lamiroir was trying to protect Trucy all the more devastating. (Especially with the Franziska changes you mentioned!) The second makes it very clear why the defense is pursuing this route. At present, you just focus on "gotta learn her secret!", so the two points I mention get lost.

Sounds good.
Lamiroir admits to going deeper in the theatre, saying she lied about it to keep herself from suspicion and prevent Trucy from thinking she wanted to steal her tricks.
This creates doubt as to Lamiroir's motives. If you take the above recommendation, you can use this.
So keeping Lamiroir suspicious here could work, then? Trying to play into the idea that she's hiding something but what she's really hiding is the desire to protect Trucy? I like this.
She mentions nothing immediately useful, but doesn't report a mysterious other person in the room.
It's probably worth having Franziska point this out.
Check.
With the help of the Mood Matrix, Apollo squeezes from her that the buzzsaw was off during practice. He tries to press harder, but by this point, Franziska is getting frustrated and wants something concrete from the defense, triggering a logic segment in which Apollo devises a theory: Jane, the assistant, moved the lines when she was shuffling about on-stage. This could have happened even before the saw trick, because the saw was powered off.

This is enough to justify calling Jane to the witness stand. Before he can do so, Franziska objects that she wants the defnese to prove something, and Athena objects that they're not done with Lamiroir. Apollo takes a non sequitur and says there's a contradiction in the testimony that addresses both concerns. With a new mechanic, he points out a timeline discrepancy: the trick was moved from the last half to the first half. Lamiroir reveals she knew, but concealed this to keep suspicion off Trucy. Franziska says this behavior is just further evidence of Trucy's guilt, and her impatience to kill Phoenix.

There are a few issues here.
1. That the saw was "off" is ambiguous. It could mean "powered off" or "something seemed unusual about it." I think you mean "powered off," but I'm not sure. Still, this is an easy fix.
2. It isn't clear how relevant this story about Jane is. Even if she smudged the chalk lines, that won't move them an entire foot.
3. The transition to and from the segment with the timeline is awkward, both logically (what does this have to do with the suspicion on Jane?) and emotionally (we're still at a high because we have a suspect).
4. While Franziska argues that moving the order of the trick suggests impatient bloodlust, it isn't clearly incriminating to Trucy. This makes Apollo's reaction seem contrived, as well as Lamiroir's lying about it.

1 is an easy fix, and 2 is an opportunity more than a problem. Since accusing Jane is a fake solution, just break out this argument when the time comes to suggest she isn't the actual culprit.

To deal with the last two points, here's major recommendation five: reorder events so that after the Mood Matrix, Franziska points out that this is now the second time Trucy has been seen acting suspiciously about the trick. First, we have Castor saying she appeared exceptionally nervous about it, and now, Trucy authorized the buzzsaw to be off during rehearsal? Apollo can object that's circumstantial, but Franziska's argument is enough to give Lamiroir some more noise. That prompts Apollo to press further and find the timeline problem. Franziska points out that this is the third time Trucy has been seen acting suspiciously about the trick, and this, Apollo can't defend so easily. It's only at this point that we have the logic minigame, and that we drag Jane to the stand. The way Apollo sees this, it's a last chance to come up with something.

(I'll add that I don't the like logic minigame or the way you present the timeline contradiction, but I'm not going to insist on changes, given the time that doubtless already went into the custom mechanics)

To be fair, the logic minigame was actually a Ferdie suggestion back in the day, and the timeline was meant to show off the versatility of v6 for new mechanics. I guess we'll chalk that up to a matter of personal preference.

This is your first suggestion I'm skeptical of. I think it's a good suggestion overall, but I don't really see why it's necessary to keep the logic in check. It's an awkward transition for sure, but I don't think it does anything egregious. Issues 1 and 2 are easily fixed with a couple lines of dialogue, but like you said, 3 and 4 would require a pretty major restructuring (which would be difficult to make work--presumably, I'd have to do some funky stuff with redirections to switch the order so that I don't have to completely redo the framework of the new mechanics).

(Plus, it'd ruin one of my favorite jokes of the trial, where both Franziska and Athena object, which leads to the timeline section.)

I think, using your previous suggestion about Apollo building up Thalassa as having a huge turnabout, the timeline section could be improved without the aforementioned reordering. He has this suspicion cast on Jane from the logic section, but something's still wrong in his eyes. Like you mentioned, I can play up him thinking that there's a hige contradiction with the "premise of Thalassa's testimony" that could be the key to cracking the case. Ultimately, though, it ends up making Trucy look even worse (on top of the saw being powered off), leaving the defense even more desperate going into the Jane testimony. (And building up that meta idea that Jane is the culprit.)

Again, while some changes would be good here, I don't think the section is that flawed. It's passable, at the very least.

Jane is brought to the stand. She has some disdain for Trucy, born of envy. She is quite nervous, but denies wrongdoing. After pressing, she reveals she lost her lucky choker necklace, which gives her courage. Apollo follows Franziska's mockery and suggests the witness was so cared of the dark (brought about by Castor's lighting), that she smudged the lines.

We have the next testimony, where Jane admits to lying and that she may have smudged lines, but also talks about the search for her choker. Apollo observes that she seemed a bit happy this time around and suggests it may have been about the part where Trucy helped search.
I think it would be good to have Jane give a clue that the cause of the emotion was Trucy, after Apollo identifies the emotion. Every other time she's mentioned Trucy, it's been less than pleasant. I leave the details up to you, but if this is a nervous witness, she could easily say something she didn't mean to.
Funnily enough, this is my least favorite part of the trial, and imo, it's the biggest logical leap. How exactly Apollo gets to "Trucy made Jane happy" is basically just "the vibes, bro." I think I'll add a clue here like you said, and do a bit more cleaning up based on some ideas I had. I'm surprised you weren't more critical here!

Athena is furious because this trashes Jane's motive, but Apollo stays the course. At the last moment, Trucy volunteers that she was helping Jane search for her choker, after rehearsal. She didn't mention this earlier because she promised Jane to stay silent. From this, Apollo points out the problem: this seems to gives her an alibi for the photo. Trucy clarifies it must have been taken right after rehearsal, and then Apollo points out that if the two of them went searching, this gives Castor a perfect opportunity to tamper with the lines.
This is another minor change, but I'd downgrade the present of the "Photo of Trucy" from "major contradiction" to "ask the witness to clarify about this piece of evidence". We don't know when it was taken yet. If Franziska hasn't mentioned by now that this makes shuffling of Jane's irrelevant, now she really needs to. This will just put attention on Apollo's accusation of Castor.

Also, Brushel might have been able to mess with the lines, but I agree Castor is far most likely.

Yep, should be a very small change here.
Image

Image
Post Reply