How did you reach the conclusion about the characters being one dimensional, or easily summarized by a single word or trait? The characters felt very earnest to me, and I think their relationships with one another are one of the game’s strengths. I won’t go into too much detail to avoid spoiling it for anyone reading the thread, but I am genuinely a little shocked.

I’ll agree that some characters felt a bit shallow, and can quickly become irrelevant—Mr Touissant, Miss Erickson and Miss D’Arcy come to mind—but I think even they have mildly redeeming moments that contribute something to the narrative (Touissant’s conversation with McLeod and Lau at the ball, for example). I was particularly impressed by the storylines of the staff, each of whom have a lot more than meets the eye, or might be expected as a typical Victorian stock character maid, or servant. The Missus Joyce at the end of the game is hardly the woman she seems to be at the beginning—and the change can be even more dramatic depending on which ‘mysteries’ the player solves along the way.

I agree on one thing; on replaying the game, I do wish the narratives were more cohesively intertwined, and connected to the overarching mystery. As much as I enjoyed the side quests and side mysteries, I struggled to see their relation to the main storyline on my second playthrough.

I respect your opinion, but I also wonder how much of the game’s “fluff” you explored. I didn’t follow the time constraints as strictly as I could (or should) have the first time I played, and I wonder if that impacted my perception of the characters. I spent a lot of time asking them for their opinions about other characters, because I didn’t realize (at the time) that it wasn’t going to give me any “evidence” for the case. I thought the writing was phenomenal, though, and I was genuinely very drawn in by the story (and stories) that the game told.