Hey,

I have been writing up some quite detailed reports for people both here on Itch and on Reddit. After about 5 minutes, I was quite frustrated at constantly having to re-read everything that had already been presented to me as I dont think the terms were well explained. The description for CONCEDE is far more confusing than it needs to be. The first story, Sharma v NorthStar was honestly just such a dull concept for a case, that I didnt want to spend my time doing it. I have play-tested around 20 games in the past month, and I just could not bring myself to progress with the game after (accidentally) completing this case. I think that should be considered quite strong feedback, and I do mean it to be constructive. I can accept that you may have no budget for art, or that its just not needed at this time, but playing a fully vibe coded courtroom game, discussing contract law, with no sound, and confusing terminology, where it cant be full screened, with text crammed in such a small space that it needs scrollbars, was just something that even with the best will in the world, I could not progress with.  

I selected one of three options (IN DISPUTE, CONDEDE, NOT AN ELEMENT, and I thought this was going to just be some initial decisions to get my bearings, and that I would dig significantly deeper, but then it brought me to make a decision, before I had learned literally anything about the case. The way you are meant to use the right hand column is not clear at all. I used it to look at the definitions of terms. I then selected one of the three answers above, and then clicked "SETTLE THE FRAME". I have no idea what SETTLING THE FRAME should do. I clicked it, and it gave me a breakdown of what I got right, and what I got wrong, which was completely irrelevant as I had not thought I had made any actual decisions, so I left the game frustrated, and quite certain I would not return as a player.

The game needs onboarding, and it needs a case that is more interesting than "Is this person entitled to hours they worked outside a contract period?". I understand law is not what it appears as in courtroom dramas, but this was not fun for me as a player. I would address the readability. I would maybe introduce a short, simple onboarding case where you guide the player through, and I would work on the visual presentation.

Hi - I haven't played the three cases yet, so this isn't feedback on the mechanic. But I read your "Before you begin" screen twice, and I wanted to say something about that instead.

I'm building a deduction game with a related problem: the player is judged on whether their reasoning is well formed, before anything is said about whether they're right. And I've been stuck on how to learn where remote testers stop, since you can't watch them.

Your opening screen answers that better than anything I've come up with. Recording whether someone changed a ruling before committing. Saying plainly what is and isn't stored, including what happens if the browser blocks it. And especially this:

"please do stop when you feel like, rather than pushing through out of politeness"

I had that written in my own test plan as something I hoped for. You turned it into an instruction to the player.

The optional "have you played Ace Attorney" question too - that separates confused-because-new-to-the-genre from confused-because-unclear. I'd been treating those as one problem.

I'm going to borrow all three ideas. Thank you for leaving it somewhere anyone can read it.