Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[stabbymcstabstab]

those roll-and-die times really suck also there should be a jail for low level crimes like GTA, theft, breaking and entering, etc. instead of prison

[Kay12]

In America, you're always put on fair trial (fairness being relative occasionally) for crimes. And you will get convicted if you can't defend yourself. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Dwarven WMD]

In America, you're always put on fair trial (fairness being relative occasionally) for crimes. And you will get convicted if you can't defend yourself. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Unless your spiky haired lawyer screams objection, slams his hands on his desk, then throws the literal book at the judge.
I'd prefer a more interactive court. Perhaps, it starts the way it currently does but choosing anything other than pleading guilty would bring you to a screen similar to the fight screen, but it would give options such as Object (attempts to intervene with the accusation of the prosecutor and provide reasoning against it.), and Wait, and then the prosecutor begins to make his statement against the defense. Each time he does, you get a message representing something along the lines of:

Code: [Select]

The judge has a neutral, apathetic look on his face.
The jury looks conflicting in agreement, and the majority is unclear.
The audience looks annoyed, wishing this circus act would end so their members could get to their own trials.
Goblin McConservative is ranting and raving fanatically.
Something about the prosecution's argument suddenly seems abnormal and causes something to click.

O - Object
S - Hold
Objecting brings up a screen such as:

Code: [Select]

You raise your hand and shout your objection.
The judge allows it.
The jury looks like they're all having a cognitive dissonance.
The audience moans and Urist McLiberal swears he hears someone shoot themself.
The prosecutor looks feverish.

A - Question the accusation.
B - Attempt to reveal a fallacy.
C - Call someone to the stand.
D - Accuse corruption of trial.
E - Bluff.
F - I changed my mind, continue.
Additionally, if you get ruled as guilty, you could possibly have your lawyer (If you have one.) try to free you at the cost of likely martyrdom, or you could try to free yourself and escape if you're high enough in security.

[stabbymcstabstab]

That sounds awesome but there should be a option I could care less about defending my fodder so before court there should be a option to pick.

[Dwarven WMD]

That sounds awesome but there should be a option I could care less about defending my fodder so before court there should be a option to pick.

Well that would be to plead guilty before choosing defense.

I would assume, since I thought the entire idea up on the spot, that if you choose the ace attorney you get something like this for objection.

Code: [Select]

Armok McBloodGod slams his hands on the desk midway through the prosecutor's speech and screams his objection as he pulls a law book from no where.
The judge allows it with a slightly fearful tone.
The jury widens their eyes at the loud objection.
The audience suddenly wakes from their boredom and becomes anxiously attentive.
Kitten McThermoNuclear looks highly distressed.

[Cilver]

I like the court effect, but I think it should be optional, like you could choose between micromanaging the trial or letting the lawyer handle it all. However, if you knew what you were doing, handling the trial yourself would have a much higher chance of finding you innocent, especially with larger trials.

[Dwarven WMD]

Eh, I do see a few problems with my idea though. Mostly savescum, but you can already do that with current trials. The worst problem I see is with the idea I had where you can try to escape in the few seconds of freedom you had before serving a nickel/dime/quarter/dollar/other-jail-term in the cooler. It's where I got the audience idea from; there's usually an audience in every trial I've seen that consists of people associated with the defendant/prosecution and other people waiting to get to their trials. I imagine if enough of a fight was given by the defense, and the defense was still ruled guilty, the audience might start rioting in some way, giving the defense time to escape. However I don't think a real audience would do that, and the worst it would probably do is cause civil unrest if any members were important.

[stabbymcstabstab]

You sure about that Heard about L.A. when those corrupt cops were proved innocent? That could happen deppending on public oppion.

[Cilver]

I wouldn't worry about the realism of rioting, this is a satire game (cough Rednecks am radio)
But I like the idea of trials being fleshed out. What if the detailed part was self-defense only?

[BurningParadox]

I feel that this might rely too much on the player's own skill of execution which is contrary to the game's foundation. The game is currently dedicated to choices not execution so having the player perform the trial wouldn't really fit.

[Dwarven WMD]

I feel that this might rely too much on the player's own skill of execution which is contrary to the game's foundation. The game is currently dedicated to choices not execution so having the player perform the trial wouldn't really fit.

We can take control of our raids on places. If it was based on choices, then I would only get to send them to a place and wait to see what happens. There are choices; I can choose to go south, or choose to go north. I can choose to shoot someone into a gory blob of gib. I can choose to threaten a landlord.
Likewise, with the idea which my spasm of ADHD caused me to put in a topic unrelated to it, you get choices. You can choose to object to an accusation. You can choose to accuse the prosecutor of forgery. You can choose to argue with their logic. You can choose to badger them. You can choose to hit the bailiff with your briefcase as he tries to take your client away.
I see no difference from the "choice" system.

[BurningParadox]

Hmm, I interpreted it as there is a correct way to perform the trial in order to be declared not guilty. That's what I meant. It doesn't make sense for there to be a "right" way to do things in order to do it. Because then its relying on the player to execute correctly. But now that I look at it again it makes sense if its just a system to institute more options. I can support that. Options are awesome.

[Cilver]

Hmm, I interpreted it as there is a correct way to perform the trial in order to be declared not guilty. That's what I meant. It doesn't make sense for there to be a "right" way to do things in order to do it. Because then its relying on the player to execute correctly. But now that I look at it again it makes sense if its just a system to institute more options. I can support that. Options are awesome.

It'd probably be like dating-with a moderate seduction (law), anything will work.

[Dwarven WMD]

Hmm, I interpreted it as there is a correct way to perform the trial in order to be declared not guilty. That's what I meant. It doesn't make sense for there to be a "right" way to do things in order to do it. Because then its relying on the player to execute correctly. But now that I look at it again it makes sense if its just a system to institute more options. I can support that. Options are awesome.

It'd probably be like dating-with a moderate seduction (law), anything will work.

Assuming the fact that I thought of giving the ability to try to escape at the end I probably subconsciously ripped dating off.

[Kay12]

Decision trees should have some depth and the choices shouldn't be trivial. A nice option would be having the Liberal testify about his agenda, possibly racking up popular support but almost guaranteeing prison time.