User Avatar Image

Law & Order: Legacies Episode 1 - Discussion and Feedback

posted by Mike on - last edited - Viewed by 1.3K users

The first episode was released last night and some of you have had time to play through it already. So, what are you thoughts?

If you're a Law & Order fan in general, did it feel like an episode of the show to you? How cool was it to have all those characters from Law & Order history interacting with each other?

There's two different ways the final case can play out, so how did it go for you? What'd you think of that ending?

We're looking forward to your thoughts! Thanks!

29 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • The first thing that struck me once I started playing was just how awful the voice acting is. Not only do the characters not sound anything like the actors who play them on TV, they don't even sound like competent voice actors. They read the scripts like they're seeing them for the first time and have no context for anything.

    I was quite happy to look past that though, because if the game's fun then the voice acting's not so important, but unfortunately it turned out that that was the least of the problems.

    The way the conversations are structured, so that you can jump around between topics, really doesn't work. Often the detectives just start talking about things you haven't heard about yet and sometimes will act like they don't know anything about things you've just heard them discussing.

    The spotting lies mechanic seems good in theory, but in practice it's mostly either too easy (Why couldn't Rachael have deleted her voicemails? Because she's been dead since the opening cutscene) or requires the player to make unfounded assumptions, like when Baran claims he was Rachael's boyfriend and you're supposed to know that was a lie because the woman at the hotel (who said she didn't really know Rachael at all) had said that she didn't think Rachael had a boyfriend. Or later in court when he says that he doesn't know if he had his cane with him when he met Rachael, and that's supposedly inconsistent with him having said he had it when they had sex... were we just supposed to know those were the same occasion somehow?

    And speaking of the cane, I was really thrown off by the whole evidence aspect of the game. When did we have the DNA tested? When did the cane get sent to the ME to match to the mark on Rachael's neck? When the game asked me "Do you have evidence?" I thought the correct answer was "No" because none of it had actually been confirmed, but apparently all that happened offscreen and was supposed to just be assumed, without anyone even saying as much.

    These factors make the game really confusing and mean that getting the correct answers often comes down to guessing rather than reasoning or even just observation and memory.

    Overall, a very frustrating and disappointing experience, wish I hadn't bought the complete series as I'm unlikely to ever play any of the subsequent games (unless I hear that they're substantially better).

  • I just finished episode 1 and wanted to pop in and say how much I enjoyed it. After I felt let down overall with Jurassic Park, I was pleasantly surprised with how well put-together I thought L&O was even though it was still more limited than the free-roaming games.

    I'm not really an L&O fan already, though I like court plots. The game definitely made me feel like I was engrossed in the case even as it took some weird turns.

    The only serious criticism I have was that there seems to be a part of the story I missed. At certain points, it seemed like there were just facts that were now taken as known, even though I didn't know where they game from. Like, I was interviewing the hacker and suddenly I had the dialogue option to say something about the girl's blog. My reaction was, "Since when did she have a blog?" There seemed to be this whole side story about who the girl was that made me feel like I had just skipped a scene entirely. I went back through the transcripts and couldn't find anything there either.

    Also, I took the plea bargain as soon as it was offered, even though I had 100% success in the courtroom. I didn't realize that there was an option /not/ to take it. I feel like it would have been clearer if there was a choice that said, "Force it to jury" or something.

  • OK, just finished the game, so now I've done the trial as well, and I have much the same complaints as before, most notably with the fact that I simply couldn't call the defendant's son out on contradicting himself for some reason, the objections you make are mostly pretty stupid and don't seem like they should sway the jury (technically correct though they may be), and often come too late. Like, when defense counsel asks the witness to speculate, you wait for him to answer then object instead of objecting to the question, which is insane.

    And when questioning the son, the game again forces you to make unfounded assumptions and penalises you for being honest. It seems like I was meant to have more information than I did, just like in the investigation phase where the detectives seem to know about things that have never been brought up in dialogue.

    Then there's the plea bargain. They accepted a deal for the maximum sentence? Defense counsel should be disbarred, because that is batshit crazy. Why would you take a 100% chance of being convicted over even a fraction of a percent of a chance of going free? There is no reason to take that deal at all since the worst case scenario at trial is that you get exactly the same thing. It just makes no sense.

  • @Tiggum said: OK, just finished the game, so now I've done the trial as well, and I have much the same complaints as before, most notably with the fact that I simply couldn't call the defendant's son out on contradicting himself for some reason, the objections you make are mostly pretty stupid and don't seem like they should sway the jury (technically correct though they may be), and often come too late. Like, when defense counsel asks the witness to speculate, you wait for him to answer then object instead of objecting to the question, which is insane.

    And when questioning the son, the game again forces you to make unfounded assumptions and penalises you for being honest. It seems like I was meant to have more information than I did, just like in the investigation phase where the detectives seem to know about things that have never been brought up in dialogue.

    Then there's the plea bargain. They accepted a deal for the maximum sentence? Defense counsel should be disbarred, because that is batshit crazy. Why would you take a 100% chance of being convicted over even a fraction of a percent of a chance of going free? There is no reason to take that deal at all since the worst case scenario at trial is that you get exactly the same thing. It just makes no sense.


    Which case are you talking about? Are you talking about Episode 1?

    Here's the thing, it was between Murder 1 and 2, I would not want Murder 1. Murder 1 can carry life in prison (with our without parole depending on the state), and a chance for the death penalty. Murder 2 is 25 years. And if you played your cards right, the defense was definitely going to lose.

    That being said, I didn't really offer any plea deals except in Episode 3 when I played it the second time-there was good reason for it. I don't want to spoil much.

  • @eblocksonian said: Here's the thing, it was between Murder 1 and 2, I would not want Murder 1. Murder 1 can carry life in prison (with our without parole depending on the state), and a chance for the death penalty. Murder 2 is 25 years. And if you played your cards right, the defense was definitely going to lose.

    WHAT? That whole scene was just really confusing then, because I'm pretty sure it said that the deal you were offering them was the maximum sentence. Not the first place in that game where the dialogue is misleading or confusing either. I would not have offered the plea if I'd known that, because I was obviously going to win. In fact, as that scene started, all I could think was that in the show the defense lawyer would have been laughed out of the room for even thinking about asking for a deal at that point.

    And I just remembered another bit that made no sense in the trial: There's one part where the defense lawyer is questioning the accused and he totally undermines his own defense, and you can't call him on it and it just seems to pass completely unnoticed.

  • I actually played through the episode a few times to get the missing stars. Turns out that plea bargain is not always best (but hard to resist considering how someone is such a jackass), and even with max jury approval it is not 100% that the defence will agree to Murder II. It seems that choosing to decide by jury makes it impossible to get DA (I had it before but dropped to EADA after replay), due to 'damage' from the defence conclusion.

  • User Avatar Image
    divisionten Moderator

    @Tiggum said: WHAT? That whole scene was just really confusing then, because I'm pretty sure it said that the deal you were offering them was the maximum sentence. Not the first place in that game where the dialogue is misleading or confusing either. I would not have offered the plea if I'd known that, because I was obviously going to win. In fact, as that scene started, all I could think was that in the show the defense lawyer would have been laughed out of the room for even thinking about asking for a deal at that point.

    You were trying to convict them on max sentence (Murder 1). When plea bargains came around, you could offer them as high as Murder 2 (Murder being the original sentence) or no bargain, wherein the two could duke it out between acquittal and the original sentence. There would be no point offering Murder 1 in plea- that's what he'd get anyway.

  • @divisionten said: There would be no point offering Murder 1 in plea- that's what he'd get anyway.

    That's why I thought it made no sense, the dialogue there made it seem like we were offering them a deal of the exact same thing they'd get without a deal.

    The dialogue in this game (not just this scene, all through it) is really confusing and poorly written.

  • @Tiggum said: That's why I thought it made no sense, the dialogue there made it seem like we were offering them a deal of the exact same thing they'd get without a deal.

    The dialogue in this game (not just this scene, all through it) is really confusing and poorly written.


    I don't want to be a jerk... but the game pretty much explains that Murder 2 is 25 years max. No Life or Death, just 25 years.

  • Just finished the free first episode. Took me around 1 1/3 hours, but I enjoyed it. Was a bit simple, but I did enjoy it. Might get the bundle sometime in the near future.

Add Comment