Concerned with the investigation mechanics

[KuroOneHalf]

Hi. I played the demo recently and I was very impressed with the presentation and got really excited about the game, but I was subsequently disappointed with the investigations themselves, and wanted to voice my feedback.

It essentially boils down to the fact that both cases in the demo cannot be solved through logic. You're simply not given enough information to solve either case, and are forced to gamify the fill-in-the-words minigame by making up the only sentence that makes logical sense, as opposed to actually figuring out the mystery. I feel like in a game like this this should not ever happen. Why make an investigation game to then make the investigation pointless? It's a complete deal breaker point for me, and I imagine would be for others too.

If this is intentional and the game you guys want to make, then fair enough. But I'd be remiss not to voice how much of a missed potential I think that would be.

[limejet]

The first one can be solved logically since we're told that the divorce papers are filed and there are no tulips in the office. that means bread is the only option.

The second one can be solved since there are only two names mentioned and one of them mentions a birthday, and the calendar has that persons face and a day circled.

Not saying it's completely straightforward, i agree with you that the player has to make some leaps (like, why would a calendar in an office have a picture of whoever has a birthday that month on it) but i think it's fine if it doesn't get more moon logic-y than it was here.

[KuroOneHalf]

Originally posted by limejet:

The first one can be solved logically since we're told that the divorce papers are filed and there are no tulips in the office. that means bread is the only option.

That's not a reasonable logical deduction. The only reason you get to that conclusion is because there's no other option in the fill-in-the-blanks section. You're not doing it because the clues led you there, you're just gamifying that minigame and using process of elimination. In no world is the price of bread something that'd bring you to financial ruin. We're not lead to believe that the bread was expensive, or see a receipt for it, or anything else. From the clues, there's no reason to conclude that the bread is the reason he's broke. It doesn't make sense.

In case 2:
- We find a paper in the complaint box saying it's Sophie's birthday next Thursday.
- We find a smiley face on the calendar.
- We know the main desk's giraffe girl is grumpy and sad.

How is this enough information to conclude the desk girl is Sophie and that she's sad because no one remembered her birthday? Nevermind how the paper in the complaint box is supposed to inform anyone of this event, she could be sad for any number of reasons. From the evidence gathered, it's not enough to conclude that she is Sophie, or that it's her birthday, and that that's why she's sad. Her demeanor seems grumpy in general, so I would personally not assume she drew the smiley on the calendar. The smiley isn't drawn close to the birthday date, so you can't assume the one who drew it is the birthday person. There's just too many missing links here. You're forced to assume what happened once again by gamifying the fill-in-the-blanks.

[CrazyDragy]

I'm not gonna lie, all games I've played in this genre like "The case of the golden Idol" or "Tangle Tower" could be critiqued like that
Also I'd disagree that the first "case" is that illogical. The sequence is super trope based and is quite clear if you're familiar with those:
MC is divorced and not over it, clearly hungover. But he's a duck not a man. There's a bunch of bread laying around the apartment. (The later phone call reveals a bread addiction is at play.) He doesn't have a lot of money (but the profession they were in almost always has them living paycheck to paycheck to begin with, then the divorce is costly, and they use the rest of their money to drown their misery). It's a tale as old as time in these types of stories.

[KuroOneHalf]

There is *one* bread loaf where his pillow would normally be. If there'd been a ton of bread lying around then ok, that'd be more reasonable. But there is just one, and when you interact with it he just gushes about how much he likes bread, which, yeah, he's a duck. Nothing to suggest this is the reason for his financial woes.

I am not familiar with those two games, but the steadfast rule in mystery writing is the reader needs to be able to solve the mystery with the clues given. Doubly so if it's a game and it's putting you in the investigator's shoes. This game seems aimed at a more casual audience, so I would argue the puzzles should even err on the easy side. Not just solvable, but relatively obvious, when presented with the evidence. Neither puzzle in the demo reaches the logically solvable bar, I think.

[Joni]

Thanks for the feedback!

It's definitely a difficult task to strike a balance of difficulty that can cater to both newcomers of the genre and those that have played many of these sorts of titles.

We've tried to include a range of subtlety to the clues for all the deducktions, but there will never be a single clue or piece of evidence that will outright give you the answer.
The aim of the game is to consider multiple pieces of evidence and the context they are in to solve the case.

If this still doesn't seem like your cup of tea, in the full game there is a hint system, which we've tried to tune to not give you the answers but instead suggest to you where to look again if you might have missed something important to the current deducktion.

Joni

[KuroOneHalf]

I agree with everything you say, and it is my cup of tea. I just think the game doesn't reflect that (the demo portion that we can play, anyway.) I don't want to come off as antagonistic, cause I do like the game, and want it to be great. That's why I'm trying to give feedback. I just think the demo cases fall short of the goal.

Try getting some new playtesters and ask them what they think the answer is before they open the notebook. I'm willing to bet they won't be able to decisively tell you what is going on. There just isn't enough information. Unless I missed any clues, but the game explicitly tells you when you have all the needed information, so I don't think I did.

[col.kurtz]

I agree with the OP.

Looking at the calendar gives you the words Today, Happy, Cute; yet somehow they're transformed in the inventory to Sophie, Birthday, Happy.
Clues arise from unrelated thoughts: "must remember dry cleaning tomorrow" leads to the concept of Remembering as a option.

So far as I can see, in its' current version only clue words are added to the journal (with the exception of the calendar). I think each clue should have an entry, a succinct recap of its' significance would act as a hint without needing to click through dialogue again. For instance, in the first room there's:
Bread -> Pricey habit
Badge -> own identity
Rent notice
Photo -> Ana + Tulips
Divorce papers

Then, hopefully, the player would be able to mull it over and reach the correct de-duck-tion before assembling the answer and without needing a limited choice of colour-coded clues.

I haven't quite made my mind up if the drop-downs should offer more options to prevent brute-forcing it as the OP explains. Perhaps at harder difficulty settings.