[T] Athena Cykes: Ace Attorney – Dark Ace Saga ★☆○○

[ZekromFan57]

Overall I really enjoyed it, but there were a few bits I found wonky in terms of the logic. The one that really stood out to me was when

Spoiler : :

O'Reilly being surprised at Wright's loss and anger was considered a contradiction; the logic for why being surprised at the anger would be weird is sound, but seeing as he was described as the "undefeated champion" in that same textbox, couldn't the loss itself - also described in the same textbox - easily have been cause for surprise without any contradiction?

Spoiler : :

Hmmm, that's actually a valid point. The only explanation I can really think of to fix it is that since O'Reilly didn't think of that as an excuse because he was lying to begin with. I'm glad you enjoyed it regardless though.

[AFan!]

I LOVED THIS CASE!!!!!

Spoiler : :

Will we ever find out who killed the Chief Justice and Kristoph? Basically, will there be a sequel LMAO

[drvonkitty]

Glad you enjoyed it!!

Spoiler : :

You're correct, we left this open-ended for a potential sequel. As to when, I couldn't tell you. Cases like this are a huge time investment, and I've been busy with work & other creative projects. So the short version: I'd like to make a sequel, but I don't know when (or if) that'll happen.

[Enthalpy]

We've had two QA requests come in at about the same time, so I will be reviewing this one.

☆ This case is pending a QA inspection to be featured.

...And great timing, because I've been looking for some cases to play to test some AAO changes.

[applekitty]

I remember playing this case briefly just to see how the mood matrix worked back four or so months ago, but I finally gave it a shot yesterday. I don't have a liveblog for you because I played this in a VC at work, so I couldn't record it either. I loved the sprite for the manager quite a lot, I thought she was an especially good inclusion.
I appreciate more Athena-protag cases, and I especially appreciate the working Mood Matrix. It was a little odd because it wasn't totally like canon's (what with the ability to press AND pinpoint at the same time) which I found made it harder to get to the point in some of the cross examinations, but it's still pretty cool. Your use of .svg's was very, very cool. Though, one small thing on my end that's just an artistic complaint is that the mood matrix icons don't light up with their corresponding color. Just a nitpick, though.
This case was a great inspiration for how I figured out how to make my own personal mood matrix work, as I played around with .svg's briefly, then settled for .webp's. Thanks for putting this out there.

[Enthalpy]

I've started the QA. One minor issue that I want to let you know about now:

Spoiler : :

I'm testing some improvements to the AAO audio system as I QA this, and I'm noticing that your loop times for Core isn't right. You ask the music to restart at 4249 ms, but when I play it in Audacity, it's very noticeable when the loop starts. Can you look into this for me? If I can get the audio playing as intended, that'll move the code changes forward.

[drvonkitty]

Full disclosure, those loop times were made back in like 2014, but...

Spoiler : :

This is where I have the loop time set. You can see a clear divide at about 3100ms as well, but to me, that sounds like it's still part of the intro. I can change it if I'm mistaken, though.

[Enthalpy]

Just finished the case. It took longer than expected due to my falling ill within 24 hours of my last post here. Expect the review by New Year's.

[Enthalpy]

I would like some clarification on CE2:

Spoiler : Annoying technical point :

We have the following dialogue just before the CE starts:

Judge: You defended Mr. Wright at that trial, did you not?
Apollo: That's correct, Your Honor. He was found Not Guilty. But we believe the defendant feared that the victim could prove his guilt.
Trucy: That's ridiculous, Polly! You proved that Kristoph Gavin was the real killer!
Apollo: ...

Trucy understandably but incorrectly takes Apollo to be talking about guilt for murder. Why was Ema so vague about why van Cleef's investigation was bad for Phoenix? Why does Apollo not clear the matter up now? Is this a deliberate trap he's setting?

[drvonkitty]

I would like some clarification on CE2:

Spoiler : Annoying technical point :

We have the following dialogue just before the CE starts:

Judge: You defended Mr. Wright at that trial, did you not?
Apollo: That's correct, Your Honor. He was found Not Guilty. But we believe the defendant feared that the victim could prove his guilt.
Trucy: That's ridiculous, Polly! You proved that Kristoph Gavin was the real killer!
Apollo: ...

Trucy understandably but incorrectly takes Apollo to be talking about guilt for murder. Why was Ema so vague about why van Cleef's investigation was bad for Phoenix? Why does Apollo not clear the matter up now? Is this a deliberate trap he's setting?

Spoiler : :

That is indeed one of the few traps that Apollo sets during the trial. We tried to make Apollo's transition into a prosecutor realistic, and I wanted to avoid having him fall into the nasty tricks of some of the other prosecutors in the AA universe. But this is an exception, because Apollo really dislikes Phoenix in this continuity. So he's happy to use some prosecutorial skill to set up a trap & make Phoenix look bad by revealing the true motive. It also throws Athena off her game, because she's learning all of this about Phoenix as the trial proceeds.

(Also, I wanted the reveal to come as a surprise to the player as well, so maybe a teensy sacrifice of character writing in favor of dramatics... perhaps I'm still a little guilty of my previous sins, lol.)

[Enthalpy]

Aha, got it.

Spoiler : :

And then one more question for both of the authors. When I played this case, I had a feeling that I was missing something. What was this case supposed to "feel" like? Are you (a) going for a vanilla AA case set in a darker AU? Is this (b) a story about Phoenix coming to trust lawyers again? Is this (c) setting up pieces for a longer series that just needs to work as a stand-alone case for right now? Are (d) the NPCs at the heart of this story?

If I had to guess, it's (c), but I want to ask before writing a final review.

[drvonkitty]

Aha, got it.

Spoiler : :

And then one more question for both of the authors. When I played this case, I had a feeling that I was missing something. What was this case supposed to "feel" like? Are you (a) going for a vanilla AA case set in a darker AU? Is this (b) a story about Phoenix coming to trust lawyers again? Is this (c) setting up pieces for a longer series that just needs to work as a stand-alone case for right now? Are (d) the NPCs at the heart of this story?

If I had to guess, it's (c), but I want to ask before writing a final review.

Spoiler : :

I can't speak for Zekrom, so feel free to add your own perspective, but the original premise was just (a). I'll copy here the message I sent Zekrom when he said he'd be interested in a potential collab:

It’s a divergence using the bad ending from Apollo Justice—where there’s a hung jury and Vera dies. It’s the lamest bad ending in AA, and it doesn’t really make much sense: Phoenix is clearly exonerated, but the Jurist System turns out to be a failure. It’s just undeveloped and kind of bleh. So I wanted to expand on it and explore what might have happened.

The premise of the case, then, is an alternate timeline Dual Destinies with Athena as the protagonist. She shows up for a job at the “Wright & Co Law Offices” and things proceed from there. The idea of the case is to heavily mirror the events of Apollo Justice, especially Turnabout Trump. I almost want the case to feel like “Turnabout Trump, but Athena”. Phoenix doesn’t want to hire her, as he’s done hiring lawyers, but he ends up having to due to being arrested.

In terms of further details, the murder occurs in a poker lounge. It’s a locked room-esque premise, with a connected coffee shop, with a barista being the main witness. Athena and Trucy are actually in the coffee shop when the murder occurs.

So, you can see that our starting point was just "Turnabout Trump, but Athena." Going even further back, I really just started with the knowledge that I wanted to write a case with Athena as the protagonist—the working title was literally "Turnabout Athena is the protagonist" lol—and the Butterfly Effect competition led me to the AJ bad ending as well as Prosecutor!Apollo, which to my knowledge has never been done before despite SK's great spriteset.

The details of the mystery & case logic were all devised by Zekrom from that point on, as was the cliffhanger ending that does indeed set up a potential series. Given that's the direction we went, the case does end up more like (c) as, like you said, something is indeed "missing" because we get no firm resolution to the mystery. Of course, that kind of is the resolution: Athena is able to dislodge the prosecution's case and create doubt about Phoenix's guilt, without needing to prove that some other culprit is responsible as in almost every AA case. I recognize that might be controversial, as it doesn't have the same satisfying 'oomphf' of cornering the killer, but I think it was a necessary choice to set up for potential future cases.

w/r/t (b) and (d), I would answer no to both of those. Phoenix is a main character here, but I can't say we really explored the depths of his trauma in more than a superficial manner. We could have, but much like AJ, Phoenix isn't the star anymore. In fact, I wanted to set up a contrast to Turnabout Trump: in that case, Phoenix is sly and constantly one step ahead. Here, he's confused and scared but trying to project otherwise. He's a jerk to Apollo in the former because he's testing Apollo and trying to see if he'll be the key to Phoenix's envisioned reforms, but he's a jerk to Athena because he's frightened and, well, traumatized. I think that contrast is most evident in the "I plead silence" testimony, where he's clearly defensive, compared to his tactical decision to do so in 4-1.

For (d), I can't say that any of the characters like O'Reilly or Marian Jir are meant to be at the center of the story. They act much like the witnesses in most AA cases: they have a gimmick, they have some motivation that drives their decisions, and both of those are used to forward the plot of the case. The heart of the story, in terms of characters, is really the dynamic of the four main characters: united as the Wright Anything Agency in canon, and divided between the Wright Talent Agency + Athena vs Apollo in this AU. If this case was entirely standalone, then there would be much more devoted to exploring that dynamic—particularly Athena & Apollo, who are two of my favorite characters—but instead, this case just sets it up and scratches the surface of what could be.

Admittedly, part of this was just a time constraint! We entered into the competition midway through, and there wasn't enough time to build a grandiose case that covered everything we wanted to cover, and as a result, much of that has been pushed forward to future sequels. Beyond that, I also just wanted something a little more grounded compared to ATCJ. I recognize that the decision to have this start as a series leads it to feel a bit awkward as a standalone case, but I also don't think you need a full series for the case to stand alone. Obviously not comparing the quality of the work here, but the original "Star Wars" worked fine as a standalone movie, though now we know it as "A New Hope" in a much lengthier series. There's a beginning, middle, and end to the story, and the characters have an active role to play, even if their arcs are incomplete in the grand scheme of that universe.

Hopefully that all makes sense! Ended up writing more than I intended, as per usual. I really like this universe, and I'm looking forward to making more cases in it over time as me and Zekrom are able to find time for it. Even so, I think the case is capable of standing alone even if there is something 'missing' as you said.

[ZekromFan57]

Aha, got it.

Spoiler : :

And then one more question for both of the authors. When I played this case, I had a feeling that I was missing something. What was this case supposed to "feel" like? Are you (a) going for a vanilla AA case set in a darker AU? Is this (b) a story about Phoenix coming to trust lawyers again? Is this (c) setting up pieces for a longer series that just needs to work as a stand-alone case for right now? Are (d) the NPCs at the heart of this story?

If I had to guess, it's (c), but I want to ask before writing a final review.

Spoiler : :

I'd have to say (c) since my intention behind setting up Kristoph's murder at the end, with the card connecting the two incidents, was so that there'd be the potential for a sequel later, and the feeling of something missing and there being no clear resolution was done to add to this intrigue with regards to the killer, although it's also, as DVK said, partially due to the time constraint, and I think if we'd have extended the case further it would probably have felt too rushed.

(b) is I guess partially true, since an underlying theme of the case was the fractured relationship between Phoenix and Apollo, but ultimately more focus is put on Apollo since this is more his story now. Also Athena getting Phoenix to trust her is also an integral part of the case, but again Athena is the focus here. That's not to say we won't explore Phoenix's character further in a potential follow-up however, as the events of Turnabout Succession clearly took a toll on him, but this case's focus is on Apollo, who has gone down a dark path, and Athena, who wants to find the truth and save him.

(d) is definitely not true, as the witnesses take a back seat in terms of the narrative. (a) was never really my intention personally since I wanted to set up the wider mystery. And yeah, that's pretty much it. Excited to read your review!

[Enthalpy]

QA Review: Ace of Turnabouts


Athena asks the hard questions.

The last time I played a case from either of these authors, they were pretty long, and I was left thinking something simpler may be a good call. Was I right?

_____________________________________________________

The format on Check #1 is copied straight from last time.

They check that it has an overall story and gameplay of astounding quality; it should be really engaging, have interesting contradictions and be really fun.

✮ – The Sparkling Feature Star is given for an aspect that makes your trial stand out even among the featured trials. Getting a Sparkling Feature Star means your trial is pretty much guaranteed to be featured after implementing the changes from check 2, unless it gets a Hollow Star.
+ – The Great Plus means that this aspect makes your good trial great. You don't need a Great Plus in every category, but you should have at least one Great Plus or Sparkling Feature Star for the trial to be featured.
✓✓ – The Double Check Mark means that this aspect is good enough for a featured trial. Almost everything in this area works solidly, but it lacks a "wow" factor. An otherwise great aspect that requires some non-trivial tweaking falls in here.
✓ – The Single Check Mark means that this aspect can be good enough for a featured trial, but requires not major, but non-trivial modifications to make it truly solid. You must not have any Single Check Marks in order to pass Check 2.
✰ – The Hollow Star marks a problem that can't be fixed without a major rewrite. A trial must not have any Hollow Stars in order to pass Check 1. If you get one, don't be discouraged! Remember that a Hollow Star is only a star that hasn't been filled yet. It's something you can work on when improving this trial or writing your next one, and once you've worked on it, go for another QA review!

Unlike the other marks, the Hollow Star and Single Check Mark only talk about how large of a rewrite is needed to be featured-trial good, not how good that part of the trial is.

Spoiler : Check #1: Here Be Spoilers! :

The development timeline for this case is
Mar 5: drvonkitty looks for collaborator, has hazy idea.
Mar 6: drvonkitty and ZekromFan join competition.
Apr 27: Competition deadline.
May 18: Competition ends.
May 21: Release.

This case was made in about two months and not given major touch-ups since. A running theme of this review is that the case is serviceable for what it is, but would benefit from one more iteration of edits to knock Double Check Mark up to Great Plus.

Contradictions and Cross-Examinations: ✓✓

The case logic works, broadly speaking, but needs a lot of refinement due to things the authors took as clear not being clear to me. That is already a huge improvement for one of our authors. First, the refinements:

Cross-Examination 2

• Because we’re contradicting Athena and Trucy’s interpretation of Ema’s statement, rather than Ema’s statement itself, I recommend having Athena and Trucy add the detail “…Phoenix was afraid of being convicted for murder” explicitly in the co-counsel conversation. Phoenix would have plenty of reasons not to want van Cleef revealing he was the murderer, even with double jeopardy. Can you imagine how Trucy would have reacted to that reveal?
• The existence of the coffee order says van Cleef also should have had a pen and some paper, but Ema doesn't mention this.
• I suggest updating the description of the medicine bag to say it was found by the body. That should make it clear that it should have been the victim’s.

Cross-Examination 3

• Presenting evidence for Phoenix to “explain” is vague. I could ask him to explain whether he saw the heart medicine, whether he saw the victim place the coffee order, whether anybody moved inside the room… I propose rewording the prompt to make clear that we need something incriminating for him to explain away.

Cross-Examination 4

• The large amount of shock on “fit of rage” isn’t surprising, if it was sufficiently dramatic. Perhaps you should have O'Reilly say the victim "turned pale" rather than entered a fit of rage.
• Can you also accept the very dark photo of the room as evidence that it was dark? Perhaps you could use a graphic filter to darken the room photo, or make the candle more visible? I had the right idea but a hard time figuring out how to present it.

Cross-Examination 6

• The question “This is how the real killer could have gotten into the kitchen from the game room without her knowing.” doesn't make much sense to me. How WOULD she have known? I think you mean to ask "This is how the real killer would have gotten into a locked game room."
• Apollo’s rebuttal could use some focusing. He should lead with “You still can’t get a third person in the crime scene to cause the heart attack” before he leads with the issue of when.

Cross-Examination 8

• Phoenix should clarify how much of a gap there was between the shattering and the scream. Is it a split-second? A full second?
• The thought route loses me. What's the reason the killer couldn't have climbed into the room from the kitchen, caused the accident, climbed back into the kitchen, and then left when the kitchen was unguarded?

There was nothing that made me think the cross-examinations rose to the level of Great Plus. I liked the Thought Route at the end (and I normally don't care for thought routes), but nothing else stands out.

Dialogue and Characterization: ✓✓

This game does not put its original characters in the spotlight. (I knew this before I asked, just wanted to do some fishing.) We see our baristo for two cross-examinations, and we see the manager for one door-breaking, one investigation scene, and then one cross-examination. They can use Jir effectively for some jokes, and in light of her disposition, O'Reilly's perjury makes sense. If you really want that AA feel, I have an optional recommendation: tweak O'Reilly's personality so that "I could lose my job" would be doubly devastating. Let me use some examples that I owe to Ferdielance. For example, Wellington projects a persona of upper-class arrogance, but his motivation is to keep his con artist identity secret, and he is embarrassingly bad at seeing what's in front of him. My first thought is that something similar to Adrian Andrews from 3-3 could work: he appears suave but changes demeanor when he makes a mistake. When he needs to revise his testimony, does he treat it like apologizing to a customer? Like he's expecting to be yelled at by the authority any minute now?

But as we've just clarified, this is a story about the Wright Anything Agency: past, present, and mostly future. And I think here is where you have a very similar problem to my last competition entry that I need to get out of editing limbo already before it turns into A Turnabout Called Justice: the dialogue isn't as expressive as I think it should be for a case concept like this. And I get why this is the case. You had a time limit, and were probably making some changes to your writing style to boot.

The writing in the investigation was strong. I enjoyed the first scene between Athena and Trucy, the fight between Trucy and Phoenix was great, and I loved Phoenix's despair-addled talk with Athena in the detention center. I also enjoyed the opening defense lobby scene with Apollo is good, as well. It's believable for Apollo.

But once the trial actually starts, the dialogue loses its strength. Remember that these aren't generic player-inserts on the sides of the court. The personalities of the lawyers should inform how they go about their argument, and how they respond to the opposition. The second cross-examination is a missed opportunity. Athena's reaction to what she thinks is Apollo accusing Phoenix of murdering Shadi Smith is uncharacteristically subdued, and neither Athena nor Trucy react to the fact that Apollo deliberately misled them as to his position and set a trap. We never get any commentary about how Apollo traps them. Does he look cold and matter-of-fact, is there self-satisfied gloating, can Athena hear a twinge of regret...? By contrast, when Edgeworth updates the autopsy report, Phoenix lets Edgeworth have it, and Edgeworth's reaction lets us know that the rumors about him are true.

The third cross-examination is another good example. Phoenix gets in a jab about how "Kristoph would be proud" and Apollo responds with "Are we done here? This witness clearly doesn't have anything useful to offer us." Shortly thereafter, Phoenix says he was good at wasting time, and Apollo asks to be spared the joke, but that's all the character we get out of this scene. I'm surprised that these two have so little to say. Even if they do have little to say, some commentary by Athena could make this much more lively.

As a result of all this, Phoenix's decision to hire Athena at the end of the case and take the stand carries little emotional weight. This takes me straight to...

Narrative: ✓✓

The story intentionally leaves loose ends. We got our "not guilty" verdict and figured out the howdunnit, but we know very little about the whodunnit and whydunnit. Phoenix is not being blackmailed, but the allegation of Ace forgery is out. Athena is in the agency, but Apollo still has only contempt for Phoenix. This makes a lot of sense for the start of the series, so what I'm looking for instead is setup for later. AJ-1 is an outstanding example. It introduces plot points that will return in the finale, sets up Apollo's story as one about finding an independent voice instead of being carried along by stronger personalities, characterizes our favorite hobo, and establishes the tone of the story to follow.

This case sets up plot points, and that part is great. But the rest of the story hits the notes, but not quite right. It's enough for a feature star, but you may have problems if you decide to carry this forward as a series. Athena's freeze-ups feel like a generic opportunity to make things more dramatic rather than part of a larger story. I don't have a good sense of what "clicked" for Phoenix to change his demeanor. My sense of Apollo's attitude towards the Agency is carried mostly by the lobby scenes as his attitude seems hidden for most of the trial - "show don't tell".

Changes to the dialogue to explicate those more would make for a much stronger case.

Presentation: +

This is consistently good, and apart from some very minor fixes, this was exceptional. Once again, the Mood Matrix implementation was very stylish.

Spoiler : Check #2 :

Part One

• Consider shortening the pauses on the opening dialogue. It went by slowly for me.
• Intro graphic is pixelated.
• I thought Widget was made by Metis, so why does Athena say she made him? Am I mistaken on this?
• Please double-check frame 121, when presenting Widget to Trucy. You have a blank sprite inserted which is tripping my "probably bug" detector
• F214: well then, let's go
• F1601: think, wonder [When examining "modern art" in poker room]
• I had a very difficult time finding the grape juice bottle, and later the coffee machine. Can you edit the graphics to make it more apparent, or increase the size of the clickbox?
• The bag can get added to the Court Record a second time if you click the right area of the screen, even though the bag itself is no longer visible. I'm not sure if this is an issue in your script or in AAO.
• F1403: cost
• I don't have the frame number for this one, but when presenting Ema to Trucy, Athena says "simple1" instead of "simple!"

Part Two

• F197: The standard AA way of handling this uses ellipses.
• F688: was -> were; It's very technical, I know
• F1051: Random comma placement?
• F1362: was -> were again
• F1371: ensure? Do you mean assure?
• F2016: Cykes's
• F2205: Weird line breaks.
• F2553: Cykes's
• Phoenix should clarify how much of a gap there was bet
  F3316, 3431: Ellipses again

Spoiler : VERDICT :

★ The case is good enough to be featured, but...

I suspect that this case needs some more editing time to get to the level you want. This is perfectly understandable in-context. You can (A) make my recommended contradiction and Check #2 fixes in a day or two to get a star. Otherwise, (B) think about what impression you want to give the player in terms of tone and character developments, make those more apparent, and ask me to give the case another look. If you do, I'll probably up some check marks to a plus, and you'll have a much stronger case for it.

If you are thinking about developing this into a series, I urge you to take Option (B).

[DJJ6800]

I'm so glad to hear this case is gonna be featured! Awsome and I had a blast playing through this case for the Butterfly Effect comp and...well, I can't speak for his pov but for mine, I was blown away when playing this case. For me, it was pretty much close to perfection. Showcasing the strengths of two amazing writers and casemakers. (Now all we need is for the next case to not take seven years to complete. Lookin' at you, drvonkitty.)