Hello everyone, it’s my first post in here so I’ll start by saying that if I get anything wrong please let me know and I’ll fix ASAP.
I’ve been working on a little something in my spare time for a while. The player will have to judge other people in a series of cases, basing their judgment not only on their own morale but on the consequences their decisions will have on a wider scale, including their fate.
The game is pretty much already completed and playable from start to finish, including the multiple endings, and I’m looking for feedbacks to decide whether or not to add more content or, if it’s not that interesting, to just move on and work on new stuff.
Hello everyone! It’s me again, the guy with the weird game!
I’ve been working on the game for the last few months (when I had time) and I should now have a proper build of the game available for Beta Testing with (hopefully) way less bugs and typos!
For those who played the game, here’s a change list:
Fixed tons of typos!
Added save slots!
Paragraphs and pages are now smaller and easier to read!
Endings now tell you the consequences of your choices!
You can ask if your punishment is unconstitutional!
No more point of view shifting!
Added preset names!
Felipe Perez is now a young man and not a boy anymore!
Blocked choices now tell you how to unlock them!
Updated info about Ludmilla Tors’ condition!
The link in the first post is now updated, feel free to give it a go!
I’d like to thank everyone once again for their feedback, I’ve tried to listen to everybody and change the game accordingly. Hope you have fun playing!
That’s valid. Of course, you also have to put it out here anyhow if you want to publish it, since a beta period is required to put it in the Hosted Games publishing queue. It’s also pretty much necessary anyhow since that feedback given is critical to making any story the best possible version of itself. I hope it all works out for you!
AHHH THIS TYPE OF GAME IS MY FAVORITE SJDNHIDSHMDk- (Also I see your reference with Gumshoe… hehe)
The only thing that I feel like really bothers me so far is the blocked-off options. As far as I can tell, there really isn’t any reason to have them blocked off, especially so early in the game.
There’s also that, well… the dichotomy of choices is a little restricting. I’d like some more nuance in the way the MC is allowed to think of a case- I was trying to play my MC as someone who likes to explore ALL avenues before they come to a decision, and that was interpreted by the game as being stubborn or immoral, rather than simply wanting to consider everything. (It especially irked me when the option to agree with Madeline about feeling weird about Robert was blocked off, sdjfnhudfks- none of the options had asked how the MC felt about Robert prior. My relationship was Robert was about as high as it could have gotten at that point, so maybe it was because of that…? But I’d only known the guy for like a day, nfdihjdfkjs. And I hadn’t played my MC as like- stubborn or rude or abrasive, so that was definitely confusing, haha.)
But I LOVE LOVE LOVED the characters! Robert, probably my favorite (though I haven’t played very far) with his whole mysterious kind-but-hiding-something-terrifying deal, Madeline with how sweet she is, Gumshoe, just as charming as he is in AA… You really nailed them!
Edit: Ooh! Also, I suggest adding save slots! It helps when trying to replay!
I really, really, REALLY don’t like the blocked off options. 100% of the time until I just decided to quit playing, the option that was exactly what I would pick was blocked off. It makes no sense at all why they would be blocked off.
This is gonna be a long one . Very minor spoilers (i think) ahead.
Just finished the game and I loved it. Firstly the cases themselves had a complexity that really made me think and consider deeply which was very interesting and enjoyable and all the different ways of looking at them morally, ethically and legally made it so much more engaging and like there werent really wrong choices reagrding that aspect.
Also I’ve never read a IF like this before, the concept is unique and I liked the difference from the usual.
Additionally the characters themselves and their personalities was executed well and I loved their little quirks (Gumshoe with his loveable clumsiness, Madeline with her romance and Robert with his sweets). Added some nice depth.
Regarding the length, I think its right. Obviously I would be delighted at more content if it’s done well but its good as is.
Now onto the improvements part. Like others said, I agree with the big blocks of texts being a bit much but thats predominately fine. I dont have a big issue with the blocked off options but it would be nice if it was more clear on how to get them unblocked.
The ending (or at least ending A) felt a little too brief and anticlimactic with no mention of Robert of Madeline even though I feel like there should be at least a little bit of flavour text saying you at least kept in contact with someone if you got a high enough relationship level. I just feel like after all that there should be a little more of ‘life after’ content too.
Also a little thing. I am just slightly curious as to why you didn’t use ordinary speech marks. It didnt bother me, just curious.
Minor errors, though rare, were present. For example Madeline’s name sometimes changed to Elizabeth for some reason. Occasionally, sentences didn’t make sense or wrong words were used. If you would like I could send some screenshots?
Anyway, overall I’d give this a solid 8/10. I’m going to try the other endings at some point.
It’s great. I haven’t got all the way through it yet but it’s gripping my attention.
I think the reason you are unsure about it, is that it feels like a first draft.
I teach writing, and there are a couple of things about your text that show it is a draft. These are things I would have pointed out to my students but I won’t inflict them on you unless you want me to.
Regarding the case of the actress transmitting HIV: I feel it’s important to state that, in the US and many other countries, there are actually laws criminalizing the knowing transmission of HIV to unknowing parties.
The issue is a lot more complicated than it seems, though. Often, people don’t share their HIV+ status for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it’s because they’re worried about judgement/rejection/violence, or because they’re sex workers and their livelihood depends on getting that work.
The actual impact that criminalization laws have had, though, is that they encourage people, especially those at higher risk for contracting HIV, to not get tested. Because it’s only a crime if you know you’re positive. Also feels pertinent that these laws have been used to such an extreme that people have been criminalized for exposure (not actually infecting anyone) and activities that are shown to pose zero risk of transmission (like spitting).
Also, as far as modern HIV treatment goes, current medicine allows for HIV+ individuals to have undetectable viral loads. Studies have shown that this means their risk of transmitting HIV to a sex partner is virtually impossible. It’s much more likely to get HIV from a partner who hasn’t been tested recently/doesn’t know their status/thinks they’re negative. Despite this, many of the laws and the ways they’ve been used don’t take into account these kinds of factors, either. An HIV+ person who doesn’t disclose their status to a sex partner but has an undetectable viral load and uses a condom is treated the same as a person who has sex with someone with the intent to transmit HIV to them under many of these laws.
Obviously we’re talking about a fictional setting here, but the reality of this is important to me as someone who is a part of high risk communities and has HIV+ loved ones. It seems reasonable to mention, too, since this game (at least as far into it as I am), has to do a lot with morality vs law and the material impact of laws and legal decisions—what I’m talking about are more potential consequences to a guilty verdict in this case.
The CDC has more info on HIV criminalization, too, if anyone is interested:
I have a question about the story. Why is there a secret tribunal for extrajudicial punishment, but only attention is paid to constitutional principles regarding retroactive law? And why are the decisions rendered by such tribunals official precedents?
I love the idea! This was such a cool read, and I was honestly a little on the fence about Felipe and Tors too, because of the long term implications of her case. Also, did you perhaps find the inspiration from the Milgram Project? I can’t help but notice the similarities lol
Either way, I like the ethical and moral dilemmas being presented. Keep it up!
Yeah, I’m getting the feeling noone is really liking that. The idea was to lock some options if the player did not meet certain requirements, for example if you have a high-level affinity with Robert you won’t be able to say “yeah no something’s not right with him” because you already kinda like him as a person and this “lowers your guard”.
I guess that did not end as I thought it would, probably going to change it a bit at some point.
Post-end content is apparently something you guys would like to see more of, so that’s probably going to be added.
I didn’t use ordinary speech marks because I felt like most of the books I read use guillemets, but I’m guessing that’s not really the case and it’s something I just kept doing for most of my life, probably because of school.
And yes, please do send any screenshot of anything that may seem wrong or improvable!