Finished the game, really like it and all, but there is one thing I just don't understand: WHAT THE BLOODY HELL IS WITH THE GUY IN FLAT 3?! Last I saw him, he was behind a brick wall electrocuting someone who I guess was his wife; this raises so many questions that the game refuses to answer. How did he get back there? What is the deal with him and his wife? What was the point of showing the player how he electrocuted his wife? How did his wife get to be in the state she was in? Why in the bluest of hells did he electrocute her?

This wouldn't bother me so much, except for one thing; the inclusion of the electrocution is completely pointless. It serves no narrative purpose that I can see; the protagonist never finds out about it, the dude never shows up again, and none of it has any impact on anything. Either this is pure exploitation for the sake of farming for nightmare fuel, or I am missing something here.

Short version:
He's Joe Davies. His wife Ivy suffers from feeding disorders. Joe suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and severe delusions. He doesn't know he's hurting Ivy. He thinks he's helping her. He sees the world and people surrounding him differently - more sinister and evil. He sees it all as a threat to him and Ivy. And he needs to protect her.

Longer version:
http://www.gog.com/wishlist/games/downfall_a_horror_adventure_game
Harvester Games first game ; )

Thanks, I also wondered what was happening there.

So there's a whole game that plays in the same hotel. Very interesting :)

I just unintentionally wrote a huge spoiler for Downfall, so I had to delete whole post ; )
All I can say is that Downfall tells the story of Joe Davis and his wife Ivy.
One of Downfall characters has a brother who plays important role in The Cat Lady and one important character from The Cat Lady appears in Downfall but in a very different role.

Cameos are all good and well, but this one is something else. Having the protagonist interact with a character making a glorified (and, I would argue, a needlessly long and superfluous) cameo is one thing, but cutting away to something that the character does that has absolutely no impact on *anything* else in the game contributes nothing and frustrates those who later realize that they weren't in on the joke.

To use an example of this sort of thing done right (or, at least, not as bad), in the novel Plunder Squad, a gang of professional thieves are holed up in a house planning the details of a robbery when someone knocks on the door. Parker, the main character who is one of the contenders for most terrifyingly accurate depictions of a sociopath answers the door to find a cop (iirc) who is on the premises for an entirely different reason. The scene is short but tense, with Parker doing his damndest to bluff the cop into believing that nothing is wrong and that he should leave in order to avoid killing him so that it doesn't cause any inconveniences and lead to the cancellation of the theft. The cop ultimately gives up and leaves, never to be mentioned again.

Thing is, the cop in that scene was Joe Gores, a character from a book written by the same author as Plunder Squad; however, not being in on the know doesn't diminish the effectiveness of the storytelling, and knowing the relevant information only makes it that much more awesome (arguably). Furthermore, the rest of the novel stays focused on the actions of the criminals and those who they interact with; at no point does the book cut to Joe Gores doing his own thing completely unrelated to the painting heist that the main characters are embroiled in, and had that been the case, it would have been nothing short of baffling at the very least.

tl;dr: a cameo is one thing, but it should only be involved in the story to the extent it has any impact on the events surrounding the main characters, and under no circumstances should the story devote time to detailing the actions of a character if they serve no purpose to the narrative.

Agree... But from Susan's point of view, Joe is just a neighbour who lost his marbles - and most of what he says is just a mambling of a deeply disturbed schizophreniac (which is true). Susan never learned about Joe and his doings - her situation is the same as any player's who haven't played Downfall - she enters somebody's flat and is attacked by his inner demons and his madness.
There is a similar case a little earlier - the man with a hammer. You never know why he attacks you, how he found out about you or what he really wants. There must be some disturbing story behind him, but you never learn that story, it wasn't told in any medium.

I get all that. Susan's interactions with the man are bloody creepy and full of nightmare fuel, and, more importantly have some impact on her; I would argue that it was something of a plot cul-de sac, but it had some impact, negligible as it might be. My complaint arises from the pointless cutaway to watching him electrocute his wife, as it literally affects no part of the narrative, and the main characters don't even realize it has happened.

You are right here... For someone who haven't played Downfall that scene might feel random and out of place. I guess I can't judge it obiectively, playing Downfall several times before I played The Cat Lady. For me, it was like meeting old friends. For someone not familliar with Downfall it could be like meeting two strangers who treated him like they were friends for a long time.
BTW, Kurt Vonnegut loved those "cameos" of his characters - Kilgore Trout, Roomfords, Dwane Hoover and his wife...

But if you haven't played Downfall, Joe can be just a random schizophreniac living next door. You don't learn anything about the 'suitor' in chapter 5 and there is no reference to him anywhere.
And, as Screen7 newsteller says, Downfall will get a re-release soon - I hope GOG will grab it :)

A random schizophrenic who gets (arguably) way too much time and development devoted to him, confusing the shit out of the gamer who didn't play the last game. And once again, nothing can excuse the inclusion of the pointless electrocution scene. I don't care what impact it has in the context of Downfall; I played a narrative focused game called The Cat Lady, and that scene had no impact on the narrative of The Cat Lady.

Look, I like this game, hard as that may be to believe, but I do; but just because I like something, I'm not going to throw my standards of storytelling out the window for it. Part of liking something is being able to recognize the flaws that that particular thing has, if only to appreciate all the other things that were done right with regards to that thing. I like the dialogue. I Like the voice acting. I'm a little iffy on the fact that the actual gameplay part of the game feels somewhat light most of the time, but the story was so enthralling it kept me interested regardless. But the narrative flow suffers for overdeveloping a character who never goes on to have any future bearing on the plot and depicting an exploitative scene of that character murdering another, which, again, has no bearing on the plot.

I'm glad that you like the game as well, but constantly telling people like myself and @johndane66 that this totally makes sense if we have played some other unrelated game doesn't make us cease viewing the inclusion of the electrocution and the sheer amount of wasted development on a character who never comes into play again as less of a flaw; if anything, it solidifies that conviction and actively makes us (well, me at least) start to become bitter. This response does not address anything that I or @johndane66 have said; it seemingly ignores responding to our statements and merely restates the same rationalizations (i.e.: it makes more sense if you have played Downfall), ignoring the fact that those are the very same rationalizations that we (or I, rather, as I cannot speak for my colleague) took issue with in the first place. I'm more than happy to converse with you, but you seem to be carrying on with an entirely different conversation than we/I are.

tl;dr: You've already told us about Downfall, so responding to criticisms of the inadequacy of that response by merely restating yourself is about as productive as trying paint a black hole.

I never said you are wrong in your opinion and I'm not trying to make you change it - I can't know how I'd seen that part if I haven't played Downfall before - I'd probably be kind of confused as well. That part certainly works for me horror-wise, it was very nice as a demo and I (with strong emphasis on I - which means anybody else can have different opinion on the subiect) liked it as a part of the narrative because I knew the rest of the story behind Joe and Ivy.
I might even add one more point to your and johndane66's criticic: How did Susan know that Joe isn't a Parasite? All she learned in his flat was that he's not the Eye of Adam - but how did she know that Adam is her man?

The Parasites want to hurt Susan and hurt people in general. The guy in flat 3 does not seem to want to hurt Susan, but is visibly upset to the point of anger at her actions. The only other person the player sees him hurt is that one person.

Adam thrives off the suffering he causes to other people by convincing people to kill themselves, and does so seemingly in taking pleasure in the suicide and any suffering that is felt by those who were close to them. He clearly wants to hurt Susan and her friend when he encourages an action that would kill all three of them. Furthermore, the Queen of Maggots at no point asks Susan why the hell she left the guy in flat 3 alive, indicating that she is ok with the course Susan is currently taking, namely the one that leads to Adam. Adam is therefore a Parasite.

To the extent that one wishes to argue that Joe is also a Parasite, Susan has taken care of all but one Parasite; see the analysis in the above paragraph as to why Adam is the last Parasite. QED, if Adam is the last Parasite, and all the other Parasites are dead, then Joe cannot be one of the Parasites.

I may be utterly grasping at straws here, but putting aside the fact that Joe is a Downfall cameo- I think it could still be seen to have some sort of purpose in the narrative. Well, from a worldbuilding/tone standpoint anyway.
World-building-wise, it's unsettling because there is someone else with something supernatural going on with him (Susan getting dragged into his delusions and all)- and ultimately Susan can do nothing about him to stop him and is even left possibly wondering if that actually happened... though she is is bound to be less skeptical than most. Cutting back to Joe at the end of the chapter then serves the purpose to tell the audience that yes, that was something that actually happened in some sense and not just Susan hallucinating something.
Tone-wise, I'd say the encounter with Joe adds some darkness to an otherwise light (and at some times comedic) chapter of the game.
Overall, Joe just makes the world in The Cat Lady feel just a little bit more dark and dangerous, since I would argue that Joe is not a Parasite- but someone very dangerous anyway that Susan crossed paths with.
I think if Joe wasn't attached to a game, he'd be no more random than the Parasite that burst into Susan's apartment, or the random lady at the hospital who I spent and inordinate amount of time trying to get the name-band from and who has somehow seen a weird spider-drug-thing.
But then again, take anything I say with a grain of salt- I've played Downfall before, so I got the references to it and therefore don't have the experience of someone who never played it (okay, it took me a while to remember Downfall, but that probably doesn't count.)

This is what we - the players - know. But when Susan encounters Joe she can't know that he's not a Parasite. From her point of view, he fits it perfectly:
- He has his place in the Otherworld (that's my interpretation - the Parasites are somehow bounded to the Otherworld and have their places there - X has that theater, mute one - the dock, cannibals' house is otherworldy in general).
- He's probably a serial killer (again, from Susan point of view - we know he is)
- He wants to hurt Susan for no good reason (well, he wants to kill her because of her dellusions - but that's what we know).
And we can't be sure about Queen's motivation - maybe she doesn't care about the Parasites and sends Susan on her quest only to put her through more pain?
Sidenote - you can leave X alive and let him continue his parasitic hobby : )