GAC1 was fine, though case 2 was super dry. I actually completed the entire case past midnight one night because I was waiting for an obvious stopping point to go to bed, never found one, and was left feeling "oh" afterwards when it just ended. Case 3 is an obvious jump point with a strong villain. Although the second game's case 3 does both things better (It is a better game overall). I don't really get a lot of the flak the first game gets past case 2. I think a lot of people hold the partially incomplete feeling of case 5 against it, but they only did it because these more than any other AA games were designed to be linked directly together. GAC2 is a direct sequel to 1 in ways that other games in the series aren't. It did exactly what it intended to do with me - It made me immediately go to GAC2 to see the aftermath.
Jury system was fine and didn't feel particularly intrusive.
Vilen Borshevik
appearing as a juror was a hoot, albeit they did kinda waste the character by having them not exist at all in GAC2.
One notable mistake the second game makes is using
Soseki
in the first two cases after he appeared in case 4 of the first game. Having him three times in four cases was too much for character with those kind of quirks. His act got
really
stale.
Never underestimate the power of stupidity in numbers. ~War13104
Never stoop to the level of idiots. They will drag you down and beat you with experience.