Discussion GuideDangIt / VisualNovels

• One of the most common complaints about Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors is that you blindly stumble through the game, without knowing what choices are correct or incorrect. Thing is, most of the good and bad choices make sense AFTER you've beaten the game, not WHEN you're beating it.
  • Even worse, if the player tries to force his/her way to the True Ending without first getting one specific Bad End, the game will end at an unsolvable puzzle. Furthermore, if the four story checks on the True Ending Path are not cleared, the game will default to a Bad End as well. To top it all off, the original release of 999 did not have the Flow Chart system, forcing the player to play from the very beginning every single time.

I know for a fact that completing 999 without a guide is entirely possible because i DID. The clues are hidden, but present, and getting the relevant endings, maybe ot the first time, but after getting a few bad ones IS doable without trial and error through all possibilities.

• During the bonus case of the first game, Damon Gant's first testimony takes the cake for being probably the most confusing testimony in the entire franchise. For starters, it's the last testimony of the first day, and it happens after some quite hard to crack testimonies from Angel Starr, which means you'll probably not have a lot of spare exclamations. About the testimony itself, at first you may think it follows a not-uncommon pattern in the main games of "pressing a statement, getting new information, present evidence against the fresh statement". The problem is that it takes said pattern Up To Eleven. Here's how you're supposed to crack it: Press the same statement twice to retrieve two pieces of information, then go back to another statement, present a piece of evidence against it, press the statement that changed after presenting said evidence, then press the very same statement you first pressed, then press another statement, then do it again after it changes, retrieve a new piece of information, and only then you can present the evidence that proves that the two murders had the same victim. It makes retroactive sense if you consider that Gant is the Big Bad of the case, and thus he would benefit from keeping both cases unconnected, but it doesn't make it any less confusing.

Taken from Ace Attorney. going through Gant's testimony is weird, but not impossible to guess on one's own, i didn't even have a problem with it. Again it's not for weird sections, but for UNGUESSABLE sections.