I played this game with a friend on discord for about two hours and it was really fun!
The interface takes a few minutes to get used to, but once we're into it, it's very usable. Maybe `[tab]` to autocomplete names would improve it but that's the only thing I would change.
We really enjoyed the first part, where we had to interview all the jurors and read information about the case. It feels a bit like the investigation phases of _Ace Attorney_, more or less?
Even if they are a bit clichΓ©, every juror having their own personality, color and sound effect is great. We grow attached to them, either by liking or disliking them (love you Henry; fuck you Alice; what the fuck are you doing here Mason).
The second part, after selecting four jurors, felt amazing at first: they were talking to each other, arguing about the facts, the motive and everything! However, after two or three guilty verdicts, this is where the game came short for us.
We quickly realized that re-reading the interviews from part 1 was useless, we HAD to try various combinations if we wanted to win. The jurors were saying things during part 2 that they weren't saying during part 1. Or the opposite, not saying things during part 2 that they knew in part 1. Or even worse, sometimes they say the opposite.
Some examples from Henry, the worst offender: - He claims that the real killer could have used gloves to use someone else's gun during part 1, then during part 2 claims that nobody else's prints were found on the gun. - He claims that the motive doesn't make any sense since they weren't married during part 1, then during part 2 answers that stealing the inheritance is a valid motive.
It wasn't very clear that we needed two kinds of jurors: jurors asking the good questions and jurors answering those questions. So even if Susan wants to burn people alive and has nothing interesting to say at all, we need to take her just because she can ask a question to Clive about the gun. We expected the jurors with the answers to introduce the inconsistencies themselves. Why doesn't Clive talk about the gun unless asked to?
You said in a comment above that "trying out different combinations is an intended part of the experience". However, we don't agree with that. It felt like our entire work from part 1 was nearly useless since we had to see how each juror was going to react anyway, and swap them based on that.
It felt like this game could be split into two different games that would work better when separated: - One where we have to spend a lot of time understanding a mystery, taking notes then selecting the best jurors, while avoiding obvious and less obvious traps (like Mason), and where everything we need is available right from part 1. - Then another game where part 1 doesn't exist. We know nothing about the jurors and we have to try multiple times to see how jurors react to each other, understand what are the best combinations then find the perfect one.
Well, we still managed to win using Clive, Susan, Lynne and Henry and we had fun overall, so great job and great approach to the theme!