tl;dr: I tried to add some criminal psychology into the game. Basically, motives map to modus operandi (how the victim was killed). Figuring them out can help you eliminate some suspects. Interrogations help you figure out motives, but not everyone might be honest or have full information. So, you'll need evidence to figure out who's telling the truth. Admittedly, this part isn't as fleshed out as I would like given the jam's time limit. It's definitely something I'll look into.

Got it, haha. 

I think I wasn't clear in my instructions. I'll give an overview first since it helps understand the purpose of interrogations.

Basically, you can crack any case by elimination with evidence found at the location where the suspect died, their motives, which map to their modus operandi (e.g. how was the victim stabbed?), and their abilities (e.g. do they know the area well enough to hide from the cameras?). The algorithm is designed such that there is only one suspect who fits into all this, and this is the culprit.

Interrogations help figure out motives. I was trying to create a type of interrogation similar to one of my favourite games, Interrogation: You will be deceived, which is basically a game about deduction and deception. It's an interrogation game where suspects are almost never honest at first. You have to talk to different suspects, check their claims against each others', and choose the right questions and the right way to ask them to figure out what's the truth. 

In L. C. Noire, suspects may lie or simply do not have the full information. For example, for Brigitte's case, people who don't know her well may assume things about her relationship. However, people who know both the victim and Brigitte may read something else in the situation. Then there is the self-proclaimed eye-witness who saw an argument about blackmailing.

Any of them may be speaking the truth or trying to hide their identity as the culprit by pointing finger. The best way to figure this out is to collect evidence at the suspected suspect (Brigitte)'s home. 

I think you found a list of lab materials with a meeting time and location? This seems like an illegal trade of lab material or a blackmail message. This makes the last claim (the one about the argument) the most likely. 

Since this directly has to do with financial gain and loss, Brigitte most likely has a lucre motive. So, you can exclude her if the victim's body has postmortem stab wounds or been tied up and stabbed, because these indicate strong emotions while lucre-driven modus operandi is more practical. You can also exclude her if the victim died by rat poison since it contains strychnine, which causes intense suffering (as detailed by the Glossary). Brigitte works in drug development research so has access to drugs that don't cause as much unnecessary suffering.

Admittedly, I didn't have the time to flesh out the interrogation part. I could have added more questions that allow you to directly question the suspects about evidence found or hints. It's definitely something I'll look into in future updates.

Though I tried to make the task easier in my game by allowing players to choose the most likely motive once they've read all key conversations related to a suspect. (So all 3 conversations about Brigitte.) I'm not sure if you've been to this part? I admit that the instructions could have been clearer on this.

There is no penalty for a wrong guess, so you can basically try every answer. More details are provided once you make the right choice.

Ok, that was a long post haha. I hope this answers your questions.

Feel free to ask me if you have any questions! Also, if there is a case you're stuck on, feel free to post a screenshot of the report and let me know the evidence found here. I'll do my best to help out!

Haha, thanks! 

I'll definitely focus on the UX/UI first, make it more intuitive. 

I agree. I could add extra features like shops in later versions and focus on the core for game jams, especially when they're only 2 weeks.

I'm glad you'd like to try the finished version! Your feedback and suggestions have been incredibly helpful. They shed a light on what exactly was missing or needed to be improved. 

I'm just wondering if you have a Discord or Twitter. I'd love to receive more of your feedback in the future!

Hey, thank you for that video! It clarifies things.

" No. The game by itself is too complicated, no matter how you explain it." 

Can you take a look at https://itch.io/t/1345585/a-step-by-step-guide and tell me whether it clarifies things?

The game is actually very similar to CrimeBot and Interrogation.

In CrimeBot, you're given crime-related evidence similar to the report and a list of suspects like the one in the game. All you do is figure out who is the culprit based on these files. It's the gist of the gameplay of this game.

Though I was trying to add more criminal psychology into the game. For example, instead of a general "stabbing", there are different types of stabbing, which can reflect different motives and point to different culprits. Depending on how much a culprit wants the victim to suffer, they can choose rat poison.

Conversing with the actual people can help get a good understanding on their psychologies. This is where the interrogation part comes in.

In fact, the only difference that this game has with many investigation games (apart from the randomized part) is the interrogation part, where you can find out the suspects' motives. 

From what I saw in your video, I think this is where you were stuck?

The interrogation part is a simplified version of Interrogation (the game), which is basically a game of deception where you have several suspects who might lie, try to figure the right questions and the right way to ask them, and cross-reference different suspects' claims to obtain the true answers. It can get pretty complex.

I tried to make my interrogation much simpler so that more people could enjoy. There is no wrong question and it refers you to the suspect whose interrogation has progressed. 

I saw you were progressing rather well until you lost the lead for Betty. Talking to other suspects (James) about Brigitte could have unlocked the conversation related to Betty (by unlocking Brigitte's first as the instructions suggested).

Once you unlock all conversations for a character, you'll be able to get a different answer for Know that name? It will ask you to choose which of the four motives you think they have. 

This part is more to clarify the motive for the player in case they weren't sure about the suspects' claims. There is no penalty for wrong guesses, so you can basically try every possibility until you get the right one. There will be some more clarifications once you find the right motive.

"Example: When you go to the Dr's house it says "I know what you did.""

I'm just wondering why you think it is a fake clue. It is a blackmail message, which is related to the lucre motive (financial gain or preventing financial loss).  

Although many characteristics seem fitting, it couldn't be the Dr because you found perfume at the scene and the Dr isn't interested in fashion (in the suspect file). It was Myriam because she is interested in fashion, has access to barbiturates (through her company), and had a lucre motive, which prompts her to choose a more practical method to kill (no unnecessary stabbing or pain). Similarly, others, as you'll find out, had motives that made them choose a less practical way to kill or just didn't have access to barbiturates. By elimination, it is Myriam.

The evidence found at suspects' homes are all related to their true motives. This is what I meant by "solid evidence". Though some might be more obvious than others.

I admit, this is more the type of game for which you might fail a couple of times in the beginning and gets easier as you play. I was hoping people, especially those interested in psychology and forensics, could learn through it.

I tried to provide more background information with the glossary and the sample case analysis, but I can expand on it. I've also made it so that you can guess the motive as many times for this reason.

"No. I mean like, after you lose all or guesses/ "deduct" the correct person you should just start a new investigation."

Do you mean automatically starting a new game? Yeah, I can consider that if it makes it clearer.  I wanted to keep the old save just in case the player wants to review their last game (whether they won or not), but I'll think of something.

"What I recommend doing is making so that the first person has an option by default."

I can consider doing that too. This has to do with the randomized algorithm as the characters' dialogues and options are randomly chosen, but if it can help, I can consider hard-coding it in the future or giving more hints.

I get what you mean when you said that the game is complex. Personally, I don't think the game is complicated by itself as there are some existing games that are very similar, but I do think that my instructions could be clearer.

I'd love if you could take a look at the Step-by-Step guide linked above and tell me what you think. I might make the instructions more similar to that if it's more helpful.

I'm very glad you've decided to try this game and let me know your thoughts. This is more an experimental thing. I wanted to create some sort of investigation game for which I'll never (or almost never) run out of cases to play with, where I can get 'acquainted' to the characters, and which had more details overall. So, I'm very curious as to how people find it. 

Hope my reply helps!