LogFAQs > #958417794

I played through part 1 of trial 1. I liked the tone here, at least in theory -- no jury, mostly I was hoping for no audience too but they still had the whispers and murmurs which I thought took away from it. oh well.

Kazuma is obviously the main draw here. I'm... struggling with the way they're framing him. like, think back to case 2, or really, all of the first game. Ryu's entire arc is predicated on him. and yet, we haven't even been allowed to really talk to him in any way beyond just the case. we don't even know if we've had any time to just go and say hey, have some tea, whatever.

Kazuma's our BFF and yet he's calling us.. our learned friend, the same as van Zieks? it's like he's his protege or something, despite having his memory back for like 8 days. he's really competent in court, very likable, but.. I don't know, I wanted something more. I also don't like his objection at all. it doesn't seem to fit him in the slightest.

the case itself is interesting, and I have to say, case 4 Naruhodo feels like the most competent in just about any game. there's not a lot of tricks and we seem really cool and collected, a lot like Kazuma. it feels like we're trying to match his tone. I like it a lot... but also, it doesn't feel honest because Kazuma seems to have turned from hothead to really detached overnight. I'm waiting to see where we go with him because we're obviously early. we're taking apart these corner rats like they're nothing and the deductions are simple, something I appreciate.

this case is reminding me of a 3-4 type of case where it's really framing what's to come. don't get me wrong, I'm liking everything the game is throwing at me with the vibe of the case and the idea of having Kazuma here. I think the execution just isn't all there though.

---

xyzzy