|
ApplesandOranges posted:Honestly, van Zieks is a better Klavier, because he's not messing around half the time and giving off a 'I already know the whole case' vibe. uh, rude, klavier is pretty much the opposite of van Zieks. Barok is an honest prosecutor who's a dick to you specifically, and Klavier is a sleazy scumbag who acts friendly van Zieks also is obsessed with drinking in court, hates the defense specifically due to his tragic flaw of bigotry, will take any case in which the player character is involved, and has a certain animation (desk leg) that was originally supposed to be in AA3, but had to be cut due to technical constraints. He's a better Godot and it's not a subtle inspiration.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
The more I think about it the more I think there's no point and never has been any point in having the health bar/pips in AA. It's never once actually accomplished anything beyond being an annoyance with the sole exception of sometimes being a visual signifier of something that should be implied narratively anyway, ie, "this is a really important presentation! it would be bad if you hosed this up!". The thing is, we've always had saves and people have always used them, and there's no reason other than spite to try and stop people from using them, and as time has gone on AA has become more and more forgiving anyway; as of AA5, game overing has always returned you right to the current testimony anyway, and now in GAA they've thrown the last pretense of zomg real legitimate gamer difficulty out the window by adding an autoplay mode. On top of that we briefly had the thing from AA5-6 where if you mess up multiple times in one testimony the game gives you a giant hint button (which itself had some issues, because it basically requires you to game over between each use and won't work if you come into a testimony on 3 or less HP). With all these considerations in play, there is absolutely no point in having HP at all. Why is it necessary to have a weird hack-y "and then, in complete defiance of all reason, your client was found guilty" contingency in every trial? Why is there this weird choice between reacting to getting stuck by continuing to trial-and-error your way through the court record and reacting to getting stuck by turning on story mode? There must surely be a more organic way to balance this, especially in a strictly linear narrative game. If it were up to me, in a notional new game I'd of course cut the middleman out and do away with HP, and have any such court interactions just loop indefinitely (which isn't any less plausible, frankly), and add a bespoke linear hint system based on the AA5-6 consultations to the existing bespoke linear puzzle game (and also keep the existing story mode implementation.). For multiple choice there actually wouldn't be a problem, since you're on strictly three choices anyway. For any presentation, you have another button in the corner that plays out increasingly pointed hint dialogues (these will be either consulting with whoever's your partner on the bench or just some inner monologue) that eventually terminate in just telling you the answer). Then, you add your "difficulty selection" at the start of the game (and in the options menu); the default difficulty which works exactly as just described, "hard" which simply removes the hint button and leaves you to continue guessing indefinitely (I don't think there's actually anything wrong with steadfastly refusing to use in-game hints, even when continuing to guess is really weird), "easy", which changes the hint button to simply activate story mode for the current presentation, and the existing "story mode", in which story mode is on all the time. Maybe these don't need to be listed as "difficulties" or anything, because they really aren't that, I'm just saying, the four options under this scheme are "no hints ever", "hints when you need", "autosolve sometimes" and "autosolve always".
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
The only time I was 100% completely stumped and forced to use Story Mode was the SS Grouse ticket because it's the one piece of evidence ever that doesn't update the description when you Find The Thing about it, and I had totally forgotten when I got around to playing again 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
Fedule posted:The more I think about it the more I think there's no point and never has been any point in having the health bar/pips in AA. It's never once actually accomplished anything beyond being an annoyance with the sole exception of sometimes being a visual signifier of something that should be implied narratively anyway, ie, "this is a really important presentation! it would be bad if you hosed this up!". The thing is, we've always had saves and people have always used them, and there's no reason other than spite to try and stop people from using them, and as time has gone on AA has become more and more forgiving anyway; as of AA5, game overing has always returned you right to the current testimony anyway, and now in GAA they've thrown the last pretense of zomg real legitimate gamer difficulty out the window by adding an autoplay mode. On top of that we briefly had the thing from AA5-6 where if you mess up multiple times in one testimony the game gives you a giant hint button (which itself had some issues, because it basically requires you to game over between each use and won't work if you come into a testimony on 3 or less HP). With all these considerations in play, there is absolutely no point in having HP at all. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
Lemme tell you, if you did not know this, in case 2-3, if you suggest "the Judge's seat" when you're asked where the murder weapon could be, you will be assigned a penalty twice as big as the preview suggests. If you, say, had not saved since the last intermissions, and figured it would be safe to eat that penalty for whatever funny remark comes up, you might wind up regarding that case even more poorly than you would if you had just played through each segment once.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 16:45
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Lemme tell you, if you did not know this, in case 2-3, if you suggest "the Judge's seat" when you're asked where the murder weapon could be, you will be assigned a penalty twice as big as the preview suggests. If you, say, had not saved since the last intermissions, and figured it would be safe to eat that penalty for whatever funny remark comes up, you might wind up regarding that case even more poorly than you would if you had just played through each segment once. The idea behind switching from a flat "five fuckups and you're out" system to a proper health bar was that they could do penalties of different severity. And then they only did that for one case, because of course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Lemme tell you, if you did not know this, in case 2-3, if you suggest "the Judge's seat" when you're asked where the murder weapon could be, you will be assigned a penalty twice as big as the preview suggests. If you, say, had not saved since the last intermissions, and figured it would be safe to eat that penalty for whatever funny remark comes up, you might wind up regarding that case even more poorly than you would if you had just played through each segment once. on the one hand this is kind of bullshit, on the other hand, if you're basically accusing the Judge of being the culprit you deserve what's coming to you
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Lemme tell you, if you did not know this, in case 2-3, if you suggest "the Judge's seat" when you're asked where the murder weapon could be, you will be assigned a penalty twice as big as the preview suggests. If you, say, had not saved since the last intermissions, and figured it would be safe to eat that penalty for whatever funny remark comes up, you might wind up regarding that case even more poorly than you would if you had just played through each segment once. The Judge’s double penalty is epic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 16:54
|
|
|
the investigation sections were overlong with too much back and forth, and the whole underage girl thing is uh, unfortunate, but I really liked the actual mystery and courtroom segments of 2-3. Even Moe's testimony that everyone hates!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
you should be punished for braindead pressing every statement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
They did that! It's a lot of people's least favorite testimony!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
Tired Moritz posted:you should be punished for braindead pressing every statement. Not when, as is so often the case in this series, the contradiction is only revealed by pressing the least relevant statement (or just every statement)
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
the game is very clear that you need to stop pressing irrelevant stuff in that testimony, and things that shake up the standard "press everything first time through" formula on occasions are good! there are far far shittier testimonies in the game- some of the Turnabout Corner ones are notably terrible and in the original trilogy, the Rise From The Ashes lunch-lady testimony has a bunch of contradictions which are difficult in a bad, confusing way, rather than challenging. Feels Villeneuve fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Sep 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
very mad that that one testimony in 2-3 took away my agency as a player. i was certain that learning more about west clownadelphia was the key to the case
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
The absolute worst contradiction is still the one in 3-2 where you have to present the newspaper article about the stolen blue diamond to prove that the letter referencing a gifted red diamond is in fact not referring to a stolen blue diamond, even though not a single person in the room has ever suggested that it was. I still have no idea what they were thinking with that one. Like I can infer from context that "received" is translated from a Japanese word that is a bit more ambiguous, but it's still insane to me that the only time anyone suggests the Tear is related to the blackmail letter is Phoenix, after the player has presented both pieces of evidence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
somepartsareme posted:very mad that that one testimony in 2-3 took away my agency as a player. i was certain that learning more about west clownadelphia was the key to the case I was certain that asking Moe what he meant when he said he was "pooped" would not lead to a terrible low effort joke!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
even if the penalties effectively do nothing, they serve a purpose in making the player feel like they need to be careful about their solutions and think a bit more deeply instead of degenerating into Try Everything On Everything mode immediately when you don't quite know what to doTired Moritz posted:you should be punished for braindead pressing every statement. they don't write those just for nobody to look at them
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:The absolute worst contradiction is still the one in 3-2 where you have to present the newspaper article about the stolen blue diamond to prove that the letter referencing a gifted red diamond is in fact not referring to a stolen blue diamond, even though not a single person in the room has ever suggested that it was. Yeah they really needed anything at all to indicate that the characters were jumping to that conclusion, when it never even OCCURRED to me that anyone would think that
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
If there wasn't penalties, if I'm honest with myself, I'd probably end up basically picking every *incorrect* answer before picking the one I know is correct, just to see if there's any funny unique responses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
And is that so wrong? Sometimes you strike gold, like Iris heavily implying that Edgeworth's feelings about Nick are a bit more than platonic, or Godot producing a thick police report which conclusively proves that Desirée DeLite has an alibi for the night of the crime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
3-2 always left a bad impression to me 'cause everything felt too stacked against the culprit from outside forces that wasn't their fault. Good thing Adrian got paint on the urn so Atmey can specifically mention it being speckled and the gold statue arrived to cover up a paint splotch the day before the heist and the security guard who was supposed to find Ron when the button was pressed was the Butz and the blackmail letter specifically mentions a red diamond and assuming Ron was wearing his DeMasque outfit instead of his security guard uniform or something apparently means you're guilty, otherwise perfect crime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 20:39
|
|
|
Arist posted:Not when, as is so often the case in this series, the contradiction is only revealed by pressing the least relevant statement (or just every statement) I love how with jury's the most important jury member to press is almost always the one with the most inane off-topic comment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:uh, rude, klavier is pretty much the opposite of van Zieks. Barok is an honest prosecutor who's a dick to you specifically, and Klavier is a sleazy scumbag who acts friendly How is Klavier a scumbag? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:He's a better Godot and it's not a subtle inspiration. It somehow took me until he had a line about only drinking X cups in any given trial for me to get this
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 20:58
|
|
|
rosenritter posted:How is Klavier a scumbag? bullet points: -he spends pretty much the entirety of 4-3 wasting everyone's time, because he knows that Machi can see and Lamiroir is blind, and how the stage trick is performed. His rationale provided is that "he likes making fun of Ema" and "professional courtesy," while he is gunning for a guilty verdict for a child who very obviously did not commit the murder -when the first day of 4-4 doesn't go his way he dismisses Apollo's evidence on spurious grounds and then tries to threaten Spark Brushel to commit perjury "if you don't get out of this courtroom right now, someone else might get your scoop, and that'd be real bad, I'm sure if you think real hard you'll recall that my version of events is what you actually remember." He claims to do this because he's bored and wants to go to an autograph signing or something -the entirety of the flashback case. He knows that Kristoph was the previous councel; he's spoken with Misham and knows that the client approached him well before Phoenix was ever assigned the case. The entire last seven years of Nick's life could have been avoided entirely if Klavier had thought even a second past "I get to be the prosecutor who took down Phoenix Wright." Like he's generally a lovely dude who is real eager to dismiss evidence so he can spend more time riding motorcycles and being a rock star, but I think these are the major points against him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 21:20
|
|
|
In fairness I also would want Spark Brushel to leave whatever building I was in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:bullet points: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
Young Klavier does deserve to be shoved in a locker, however, that is fair.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 21:50
|
|
|
Amppelix posted:even if the penalties effectively do nothing, they serve a purpose in making the player feel like they need to be careful about their solutions and think a bit more deeply instead of degenerating into Try Everything On Everything mode immediately when you don't quite know what to do Yeah the penalty system is just a soft nudge to basically encourage players to think on it. Like ultimately it doesn't matter and there are several ways to circumvent it, and obviously some will give up after a point and try everything anyways, but some game design decisions like that are just to try to encourage a certain playstyle, or discourage certain ones. And some are just there to try to save the player from themselves cause stuff like try everything on every possible interaction can really slow down the game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
Yeah, even if you're save scumming, the seconds it takes to load can add up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 00:05
|
|
|
Hey dumb question. I loved the ds ace attorney trilogy will i like the prequel british game?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
ZeusCannon posted:Hey dumb question. I loved the ds ace attorney trilogy will i like the prequel british game? Very likely yes, it's a good one of those.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 00:34
|
|
|
ZeusCannon posted:Hey dumb question. I loved the ds ace attorney trilogy will i like the prequel british game? It's extremely good and has absolutely no plot ties to the main series, what with being a prequel of some 100 years, so you don't have to worry about spoilers or missed references one bit! They're also top contenders for best in the series, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 00:49
|
|
|
ZeusCannon posted:Hey dumb question. I loved the ds ace attorney trilogy will i like the prequel british game? its good as hell, but its also very long-winded, so expect everything to have the pacing of a rise from the ashes. if that aint a dealbreaker tho, its probs one of the best games in the franchise
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 01:35
|
|
|
it has the best cast in the entire series but yeah its really really long
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 01:40
|
|
|
but if you're into v/ns in general, bloated length is something you should generally expect anyway
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 01:42
|
|
|
In general, the series could use more alternate "game over" screens depending on where you are in the trial, to avoid the issue of "you proved your client's innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, but you bottomed out before you could catch the true culprit so it's a guilty verdict for you". For instance, "game over" scenes where you get the not guilty verdict, but the true culprit escapes, so the truth will never really be clear, and people will doubt whether or not the defendant was actually innocent or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 02:07
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:van Zieks is genuinely probably the best prosecutor in the series, depending on how you'd count Barnham. Like even Edgeworth pulls all kinds of bullshit. I feel like I remember Blackquill being good (in terms of being honest, at least). Edgeworth is actually significantly worse than I remembered during AA1. I forget if the series ever addresses the implication that Edgeworth has probably gotten a bunch of people jailed under false pretenses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 02:13
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Dreamboum/status/1437170868338180097
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
Oh my god.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2021 03:29
|
|