This one is tricky. It has to do with a profile...Gumshoe doesn't understand how Television game shows are aired after all...

Mia Fey - Ace Spirit Attorney - Thoughts

First off, the engine is very good. Probably the best interface I've seen on PyWright. It manages to do stuff not even PWLib could do (pretty much meaning that PyWright is generally the best option to go now). And I want to say - props to that!
Thank you. I'm pretty sure PWLib could do something similar, but looking at some sample code for that, I'm not completely convinced PWLib could do that cleanly. I agree that Py is the best option for interface and customization.
...Unfortunately.

I can't say I was able to enjoy the first case. At all.
Here's a stream of consciousness to show my experience while playing it:

__________________________________

- One of the things that's bugging me - and this is something that's made me put off playing the case several times, is the dialogue. It's sort of hard to read, not because it's hard to understand, but because it makes the mistake of using the same words or phrases in two consecutive lines or sentences. This can be seen right from the lobby scene:







There's also the: "Could I have some water?" "I'll get you some water. Maya, go get him some water". (paraphrasing)

etc, etc. It happens a lot. Especially in the lobby scene, but it's frequent pretty much everywhere, as I discovered.

It's not gramatically incorrect (in SOME cases), but that's not the issue here - the problem is that the dialogue comes off as stale and robotic. This just isn't how you would have a normal conversation - and thus, there's a disconnect between the case and the reader. And considering it happens right at the beginning... it's a bit of a problem.

I've heard this comment before, though I didn't understand it before.

- Another issue with the dialogue is how exposition (at least, in the opening lobby scene) is handled. It's not really implemented into the dialogue all that naturally. And I don't mean the exposition about the crime, but exposition about Mia's character. ... Also, why is Maya there, exactly? (And speaking of Maya, she doesn't seem to be... as comforting or understanding. She's more like... gleefuly observing everything). Good point. I can explain in a later case. Maya... Yeah, gotta do it here.
- Wart calms down... shockingly fast. It's like "ohmygodi'mgonnadie" "please calm down" "oh k"
- One of the things that's bugging me is the Court Record. Like, this is a minor thing, but... why is its button... blue? Like, from the screenshots I'd seen, the press/present buttons are purple. In the court record itself, all the buttons are purple. So why isn't it purple, too...?
- ...Wait. If the victim was a corrupt politician, that would mean that the public would hate him. Therefore, if somebody killed said politician, they would feel indifferent or feel good about that fact. Therefore, if the killer went on trial, the people that are happy that the politician was dead would be hoping that the killer gets away with it, too, just out of spite and the indifferent people would just not care. Therefore, there is no reason to hate the person defending the defendant. ... So why is Mia being criticised here? Criticized for doing her job.
- There are also some grammar errors (mostly with the conjugation of tenses).
- Unless Dahlia is going to be a re-appaearance, I'm not sure why recap what happened with Dahlia. This was supposed to be Mia moving on with her life after she got her revenge, no? It would be... Except canon suggests that she hasn't.
- Why is Mia instantly creeped out by Payne? All he said was "Hmph." She's not that weak to cower in fear of some bald guy that soon.
- And why is Payne so aggressive to the point of flat-out insulting her? He's smug, sure. He's a dick, sure. But he does it in a smug and dickish way. It's only when he's going to completely lose or has at least become annoyed that he well use something like "poppycock".
- Again, same with Payne saying "What the hell"
- I feel like instead of the whole "the co-counsel is 14" discussion as it is right now, the judge should be less formal and show more genuine surprise, perhaps questioning Mia why she even brought a 14 year old as a co-counsel to begin with. The reason is that the current version... doesn't really add to anything. It feels like it's merely there to have the judge address the issue and moves on. Like it was a last-minute fix after somebody pointed it out or something.
- On the other hand, I don't really think the judge should bother asking why Mia isn't with her mentor. He handles dozens of cases per day. It's unreasonable to think that he can just remember every face he comes across. (Phoenix does leave an impression of him, of course, but that's only after seeing him like 3 years and Phoenix becoming something of a legend in the court of law) I don't know about that. All the cases start at 10 AM and end quite a bit into the afternoon. Considering the system of law being used in the Universe, he's handling the same case a few days in a row. Sure, he may be handling several cases, but it's been a month since he last saw her in court. He remembered that the last time she was there was because it was a last-minute switch-out from Grossberg (well, she switched out from Grossberg, that is).
- ALSO not sure if the judge would ever say "weirder" (assuming you're trying to replicate his AA personality 100%) Not trying to replicate his AA personality completely.
- See, the audience thing even reinforces my point from earlier - they should be hating on PAYNE not MIA. This kind of reaction would only make sense if Mia was defending a corrupt politician!
- Wait. Mia seems to remember Payne, after all? Ooooh. So the comment from earlier wasn't "Oh my god, this weird stranger is creeping me out.", it was "Oh my god, THIS guy again". Probably should be a bit clearer on that. I'd assumed she just didn't remember Payne (as is generally the case with fancases). Timeline-speaking, it's been about a month or so since her last case (3-1).
- Mia: "I am not the one on trial today." Payne: "You have got to be kidding me." Um... What????
- Why would... Payne submit a newspaper clipping that ESSENTIALLY CLEARS YOUR CLIENT?? It's right there! In purple and white! "Some guy unloaded two guys, the victim and THE DEFENDANT. After this, they saw THE CRIME BEING COMMITTED." Likely that he or somebody from the office lost or didn't give him the report on time. Hence, a bit of suspicion.
- Gumshoe's 1st: Why didn't Mia catch onto the fact that Wart was knocked out?
- Gumshoe's 2nd: But... who cares if he COULD be the killer? Gumshoe says it himself - the evidence points AWAY from him being the killer. This is not decisive evidence! This is leaving a lot of it up to doubt!
- ...And let's not get into the fact that the bullet had no blood on it. Wouldn't that be something instantly recognizable? Also, the ev description says "ouside"
- The trial could've honestly ended then and there. There's no valid basis for the arrest. It's over. The prosecution has literally nothing. Their explanation for leaving out the torture part is ridiculous and should've probably gotten Payne and/or Gumshoe suspended or something. You can't just withhold evidence and facts because it doesn't fit your case. (I mean, sure, people do it - but the way Payne's so nonchalantly admitting to it makes me think like he has some basis for a defense here. But he doesn't.)
Actually, yes, you can. Prosecutors lie and manipulate the evidence all the time. If there's one thing that's consistently not tampered with, it's the autopsy report. They have to at least acknowledge stuff that was found, including incidental stuff. What they cannot do, however, is outright lie about the autopsy report. That's grounds for a automatic mistrial, a dismissal of the charges, and disbarment (if they don't get arrested). They can list stuff that found, but they do not have to mention it. The thing about torture? Payne basically said they can't prove that the defendant tortured the victim. They didn't lie about the torture, they just didn't mention it. He's not here for aggravated assault, although that certainly could be added could that be proven. He explicitly stated that this is a 1st degree murder trial. That's it. Also, why would I write stuff about torture if it is not going to be used in the case somehow?

- Payne might have a witness, sure. ...But there's also a bunch of other witnesses that can DESCRIBE SOMEONE ELSE IN THE PROCESS OF FRAMING WART
- Bwuh? Why would Mia accuse Grossberg of blackmail suddenly? And so frankly? I have reasons for this. And I can't say any more than this.
- Why add the van as evidence? You could've just as well stuck with the newspaper clipping...
- Why would Triad (since I'm assuming he's the culprit) even make the mistake of someone walking away? HE was the guy in the van, no? So... Why make that mistake? I mean, as he was driving away, he had to have been aware of SOME witnesses? Why would he lie and risk exposing himself in the first place? What would be the point? I'm having trouble understanding what his plan here was to begin with... I don't know if I made this clear. The witnesses saw it from above. Imagine an alleyway, and a dumpster right at the... entrance. At that point you know he's making it up. The plan? Get someone else in trouble for the actual crime that was committed. As you can see, he's not very good at it, and it's his own ego that got the best of him as you can see later.
- How many times can someone actually be held in contempt, though...? I've heard this comment before. If I were to completely take 1-4 into account, it's one strike and you're out. For this series, I'm going to say two strikes here, if the judge is being generous. Otherwise, the 1-4 precedent takes place. IIRC, in this case, the witness and the prosecutor have gotten held in contempt exactly once in this case. Only Payne felt the brunt of it.
- GOTTA GET ME DEM TWO-FITTY
- To be fair... the receipt itself doesn't prove that it was Triad that bought them. He could've just been around the same time. She can't prove otherwise. Besides -- why would he even admit to buying them at Reno's? Sure, they could check if he was telling the truth there. ...But they could've also visited his friend and asked if she was really having a birthday party and if he was really there? Hell, why did he even MENTION going to an antique shop when he KNOWS that it was explicitly mentioned that the gun was bought in one? Has he just not been paying attention? ...Also, wait. I thought it was also mentioned earlier that gun owners can't sell that old of a gun or something? Or was that just that they shouldn't? Well, whatever, that part isn't all that important. The other stuff, though, is. Gun shops can't sell antiques. That particular gun is considered an antique. Therefore, the antique store can safely sell those. Not unheard of for antique stores to sell guns, as long as they're following the law. See Pawn Stars.
On the other stuff, true, the receipt is not enough. He just had to coolly mention what he said he bought at the store. He just gave the defense some ammo. I've rearranged the puzzle at that CE to make one search for that fact. Before, it was easy to solve because he already incriminated himself. Now, you have to force him to incriminate himself. To make it easier to connect, he basically acquiesces that he was at Reno's, but trying to hide the fact that he bought a gun, saying it was SIMILAR to the gun in question.
Now, if this were Edgeworth, he would definitely contest it. Hell, if it was Edgeworth, it wouldn't have gotten that far.
The testimony, overall. Payne still had a bit of control, even if barely. He would allow it, knowing that is what the witness told him, even if it was a total lie. Knowing where the witness comes from, it's easy to cover that lie.
- ...Mia could ask Triad to produce the gun he bought. Good point. I can fix that in that case.
- Why did Triad even drop the gun, now that I think about it? Why was he not wearing gloves? Why would he step up as a witness knowing that his prints are on the murder weapon...? Him being stupid, especially regarding gun handling. You'd be surprised on how gun owners can clean everything and then forget the fact that, in the process of cleaning the gun, they put their hand on it again. It's possible he could be smart every other time but this. I've heard comments about the gloveprints as a possibility for this, but if I recall correctly, they are made, at least in the AA universe, when someone is using leather gloves.
- "They could've belonged to Mr. Wart." Come on, Payne, not even you're that stupid. You CONFIRMED that you checked the fingerprints for both the defendant and victim... I mean, they're UNIDENTIFIED FOR A REASON. I mean, that's what the second testimony was all about! More like desperate. When you're desperate, you can commit a litany of stupid mistakes that you otherwise might not commit.
- "Taken it for a test run" wait what

but if we're going to use logic that flimsy then how is the defendant still even on trial

this is kinda ridiculous

- ... Why would anyone assume that the person throwing off the investigation and the culprit are NOT the same person considering the circumstances?
- I'm afraid I don't understand how the affidavit is evidence that proves that Triad is the killer. Essentially all the affidavit says is that SOMEBODY killed the vic and that someone was wearing a mask. And that much we already knew!
- "There was an assault?!" ... You know those times when you walk in the detention center and you can't talk to your client because they were in questioning? By the police? Did they just... forget to do it this time or something? Who knows. The way this case was handled on their end, it's entirely possible. Crime happened 2 days ago. Don't you think by know that the police bungled by the case so badly?
- well Mia now would be a good time to remind the court that Wart didn't have a good motive either and they still arrested and tried him anyway... and that if the fingerprints are on that gun that the police would have enough of a valid cause to arrest Triad and investigate him and his background Mia did mention this at that particular sequence. Or was it not explained by her well?
- ...I don't understand. How is this testimony... case-breaking? All he did was answer the question and say what he knows...
- I'm not sure why Triad is even MENTIONING the Triad. Or why he's being all like "I know he was connected to the Triad but I can't tell you why". It's as if he has to tell the truth. But he doesn't. All he really had to do was say "nope, don't follow politics" and walked out a free man (...assuming we're going by the logic of the case, that is; I'm personally pretty sure that his fingerprints being on the gun would've been a problem). He could've, but note that his sprite for the whole testimony was basically him being mad. It's clouding his judgement.
- And the judge won't question how Mia got her hands on this conversation or its legitimacy?
- During this scene (the one after triad's 4th) there were two or three times the screen cut to black when a character was obviously supposed to say something.
- ...But if Gumshoe knew something, why didn't he mention it initially? Like, when pressed during his first testimony, he admitted he didn't know that much about the victim (or something to that regard - that he didn't follow politics). The 1st testimony's press convos (1 and 1a) are not required for this case. I can see why you're thinking this, and maybe I can fix this with a reworking of the conversation.
- Actually, can't he plead the fifth...? 2-4. If it incriminates you, you can plead the fifth. But theoretically, it wouldn't incriminate him, so he doesn't have the option. Also, he blurted out something. Had he kept his mouth shut, this wouldn't be a problem. You can't unring a bell.
- Well, what about YOU, Mia? How do you have this knowledge? Are you in the triad, too, hm? ...Why is the nobody questioning this much? Without giving away too much, let's say it's about taking that one hint during the break and running with it. Without that hint, it'd be far too much of a leap of logic to even make sense. It's likely that she's wrong about the Triad, and that she's applying the what she does know about, say, the Mafia or the Yakuza or the Kitakis or the Cadaverinis and applying it to the Triad.

__________________________________

The many leaps in logic (and sanity in general) sort of... made the case impossible to enjoy for me. There is no mystery here. The crime is essentially clear from the moment we get that newspaper clipping and after that, we're essentially just waiting for the court to catch up... except the frustrating part is that I always felt they should've been able to figure it out the moment I did, too. I'm confused as to why the trial even continued after the second testimony, since it was pretty much established that there's no decisive evidence that the defendant did it - far from it. Which ruins any and all tension we could've had as an audience. Sure, the defendant is generally innocent - but at least we have something to fear. Some new piece of information the prosecution throws at us that throws us in for a loop. That... never really happens here. It's just generally a way of presenting the entire court record to the court so they could figure out the obvious.
I've been thinking about this, ever since I've gone into betatesting phase. I've come to almost the same conclusion as you. At that point, it's far too late for me to completely redo this. Just even fixing the premises presented means I have to completely redo other stuff. I've thought about this, and let's just say the implications of this case is going to be explored in a future case. You know how the game over sequences have "X will be tried in a higher court"? There's that to consider. Again, not going to be made immediately obvious.


The characters are also generally weak, unfortunately. Mia and Maya's relationship is barely given that much attention to throughout the case (except arguably at the very end), making the entire case feel like... it doesn't really have a purpose in the grand scheme of things. Mia herself seems to be surprisingly angry and bitter at everyone (even manipulative at times). Which is perfectly fine, mind you - but the thing is that she's never given time to be properly established as that kind of person, especially considering the events of 3-1. That's just not how we remember her (sure, she might seem feisty and ambitious and sarcastic there, but that's more out of frustration that Dahlia Hawthorne is screwing with everyone than her actual persona). Or even shown hints of her aspirations or ambitions throughout the trial (minus some mention of it at the beginning and at the end). I'm just not given a reason to care about her as a protagonist. I can't think of her as an underdog, because the case is set up in a way that makes it FAR MORE LIKELY the defendant is innocent; she's not completely in control, because the case at the same time treats like she just isn't allowed to win because of reason X; she doesn't show enough affection to Maya for me to understand the nature of their bond; she doesn't show off just how much she cares about her client because we never feel like she's brought in THAT bad of a situation that she HAS to muster through (at least, I don't); and she doesn't show any signs of emotional scars after everything she's been through (her mother + diego + hawthorne) - instead, we're merely told about it.
Now, the part about Mia and Maya's relationship is the first time I've heard of this, on either AAO or PyWright version. I've gotten comments that Maya is a bit OOC but not this. I have to agree on this.

I'm not really sure how much I can say, in the end. I just... didn't really enjoy it. Sorry.

Again, the engine is great, and I think you can do a whole lot more with it - a lot more than what I've seen here. As always, it's not my intention to insult or hurt your work, obviously, but to help it improve. If I sound harsh, I do apologize. I might have perhaps worded some of my remarks wrongly.

At this point, I've got a thick skin. Nothing you've said sounded even remotely harsh to me. Now, if you had said something like "This is a fucking joke!" then it would've gotten into harsh territory.

As you know, I've ported this from AAO. Play the AAO version, and you'll be thinking "how the hell did this get featured"? Part of my motivation to move it here is to try to, hopefully, improve the case even more. I even cringe at what I have on AAO. Hopefully, this is a hell of a lot better.