Is the murder mystery satisfying?

[Mystic Exarch]

Without spoilers, can you tell me if you think the murder mystery aspect of the game is satisfying or not?

I love me a good mystery, but all too often I find that games handle them rather poorly. On one end of the spectrum, you have the games that make it impossible to realistically figure out (with concrete evidence) who the murderer is, so that it comes down to essentially just guessing. But on the other hand you have those games that hold your hand and are totally linear, so you don't have to do any thinking and always get the mystery right as part of mandatory progression.

I'm looking for a game where the player is rewarded for listening to what NPCs say and thinking critically about it to do things like catch them in lies for example. I'm fine with failing the investigation due to making a dumb decision or something, but the mystery should also be totally solvable if you think about it.

Is that how this game is or should I look elsewhere? I don't really wanted to get invested in a detective plot again if it isn't actually satisfying because the last time that happened I was really bummed.

[COINCELPRO]

no

[nuringirl]

The way the game is set up, you won't be able to get a satisfying solution for each mystery in a single playthrough. (And possibly not at all? I'm still on my first playthrough.) The game simply does not allow you to follow up on all leads. There also aren't really any opportunities to deduce something and have your character act on it. Either he knows something from his background/previous interactions (and tells you about it) or he doesn't.

So tl;dr no, by the standards you've laid out. the main draw is the writing.

[Mystic Exarch]

Originally posted by nuringirl:

The way the game is set up, you won't be able to get a satisfying solution for each mystery in a single playthrough. (And possibly not at all? I'm still on my first playthrough.) The game simply does not allow you to follow up on all leads. There also aren't really any opportunities to deduce something and have your character act on it. Either he knows something from his background/previous interactions (and tells you about it) or he doesn't.

So tl;dr no, by the standards you've laid out. the main draw is the writing.

Well, I could see a game working well with a mechanic that stops you from investigating all leads, if there was way to tell which leads are objectively worth investigating or not. Suppose one person has a really good alibi, and the other person has an alibi that is provable as a lie, then you would know to investigate that person, etc.

But from what you're saying it not only doesn't do that but you don't even get an answer to the mystery at all then?

[CupCupBaconBox]

Originally posted by COINCELPRO:

no

lmao

[nuringirl]

Originally posted by Mystic Exarch:

Well, I could see a game working well with a mechanic that stops you from investigating all leads, if there was way to tell which leads are objectively worth investigating or not. Suppose one person has a really good alibi, and the other person has an alibi that is provable as a lie, then you would know to investigate that person, etc.

But from what you're saying it not only doesn't do that but you don't even get an answer to the mystery at all then?

pretty much yeah. There's no concrete answer to the mystery. I found the investigation mechanics satisfying (pick what leads you want to follow and where to spend your limited time) but the game can give you equally strong evidence for any suspect depending on your choices. If you want a proper murder mystery where you can logically deduce a clear answer then you'll have to look elsewhere.

[Uncle-Bin]

Originally posted by nuringirl:

If you want a proper murder mystery where you can logically deduce a clear answer then you'll have to look elsewhere.

Exactly this.

But reading those answers above left me with a wrong vibe on how I feel the game really is: It's awesome and I personally very much enjoyed the murder mystery. Without spoilering too much: It's somehow resolved who is responsible for each murder.

I think the answer to the original question is as often: It depends on what you expect.

[philosophercat]

You, the player, can deduce the mastermind behind the murders if you're observant and think things through, but the character is not a detective. He's thrust into the mystery, and does his best. It's realistic in that there's only so much you can influence, as someone who lacks any real authority. And as in real life, no one's there to say "you did it. You solved it. Good for you." There's always doubt, which I quite like.

[Hawke]

As the other posters said, it is not a good murder mystery - the main character cannot accuse or even suspect the antagonist until the game reveals them in the final cutscene.

Would suggest Paradise Killer, Lucifer Within Us (short, but good), or Disco Elysium (has its issues, but decent) instead.

Edit. It is possible to choose among the available suspects the most likely one, but it is neither conclusive not satisfactory.

[MFX_Media]

it's alright. replayable? not very much.

[Mr.Android]

After the end I'm still confused. Did the bad guy from the end murder th guys in Act I and Act II? For me it was a bit confusing because in the final conversation it was at least once like "You made the others murder them!".

But how should any of the suspects know about the secret passage out of the abbey? In Act I we saw that somebody was using it and it could only have been the "bad guy" from the end. It's very doubtful that the other suspects were aware of it.

[Mystic Exarch]

Originally posted by Mr.Android:

After the end I'm still confused. Did the bad guy from the end murder th guys in Act I and Act II? For me it was a bit confusing because in the final conversation it was at least once like "You made the others murder them!".

But how should any of the suspects know about the secret passage out of the abbey? In Act I we saw that somebody was using it and it could only have been the "bad guy" from the end. It's very doubtful that the other suspects were aware of it.

IIRC, Thomas confesses to the all the murders. At the time I remember thinking it was pretty simple and made sense. Like you said, he was the only one that new about and had access to the tunnels that made the murders possible since the whole point of the murders was to cover up the existence of the roman architecture in the first place.

Maybe you're remembering Andreas accusing him of "making" people commit the murders just before Thomas admits he did the murders directly? Andreas was obsessed with this whole idea that there is a "string puller" because he didn't want to be wrong about condemning innocent people but in reality the entire plot of the game makes more sense if Thomas did the murders directly.

But its completely possible I'm the one misremembering as well since a lot of things in this game are so vague. Based on the writing, its extremely possible they meant to convey that Thomas didn't do the murders directly. Which would be even more unsatisfying for obvious reasons. Maybe that's why whoever you investigate has solid evidence against them for committing the murder that isn't later explained another way, like Prior Fenec having the murder weapon. Like it retroactively becomes whichever person you investigated who did it and Thomas just manipulated them? Not sure which of those two possibilities makes player choice matter even less, to be honest.