Wooster wrote:
Oh ho ho! Let me say that unless you read the spoilers, who Providence is really does come out of left field. The Mystery is the bread and butter of Again. Confrontation is the bread and butter of AA. But both are similar in that they rely on sudden twists to keep you off your toes. The GS series takes the twists in mass quantities. Again takes the twists in mass qualities. I know I keep saying it, but there are at least two very amazing plot twists that turn head over heals what the Ace Attorney series has ever kicked out.
Since it's extremely unlikely that I'll own the game, I have actually been reading the spoilers, yes. However, before you were toting that AA was a major Mystery game, when that's only one smaller quality of the games.
Quote:
It's a good argument, but I'm not sure that even the developers at Capcom believe it. If detective work, mystery and investigation were left to the 'proper people' then we wouldn't have the investigative phase in the AA series. The mystery is an important part of the genre. Granted, the investigation phase is the most obvious weak point in the series.
But again, look for the PW series for excellent characters. Look for Again for an excellent mystery story. There's no debating that point.
Well, investigation is rather weak in any game that takes the visual novel way of doing things. And let's not forget that PW 1 through 3 were all originally on the DS, so it's pretty obvious why the investigation phases were as weak as they were (which is probably the real reason the magmata was introduced. It did make the games noticably longer).
Quote:
Even considering a good portion of the cast winds up dead, and ignoring that a sequel considering CiNG's current state is unlikely, I believe you are right.
Well, these companies don't seem to want to really try something different (for example, I'd like to see something other than murder in a mystery game...that isn't merely a fan game). The way it seems that CiNG set it out, both a sequel and a prequel would have the same result?
Quote:
In the beginning, it does have exactly those problems. But by case 3, that is not the case, or at least, 'significantly' less of an issue. You end up bouncing between investigation and interviewing to solve problems you find, CiNG adds puzzles, lots of red herrings. Infact, many of the contradictions you spot as differences have no pull in moving the game forward. I got really confused looking at the spot where a bullet hole no longer was that I could explicitly select in the present, but wouldn't trigger an Eye of Providence event. Eventually you learn that it's not necessarily the contradictions you're looking for, but rather points that lead to and from sequences of events.
Honestly, it's really hard for me to debate this particular attribute with you, since the scope of what happens during an Eye of Providence investigation changes radically depending on what point of the game you are in.
Well, there are red herrings in Ace Attorney and Hotel Dusk as well. So, I don't really see that as unique (not that I'm saying you were saying it was), just the same...ahem, excuse my language, "same shit, different ass hole".
Quote:
Just because you need to complete the event to move on in the game doesn't mean it really helps to advance the plot. Again, it's hard to explain because Eye of Providence investigation changes a lot as the game progresses.
Actually, that's debatable. Considering you can't progress the plot yourself without completing said in-game event, it makes it a tool.
Quote:
In reality that works really well. In fiction it does more harm then good. The goal is to discover for yourself what the mystery is and when someone is lying. If you have it handed to you, particularly in an interactive format, then I personally feel it destroys the effect. I'm honestly conflicted on the Psychelocks. I love trying to break them and love what they do for the investigation phase, but discovering them, and the fact that at minimum 2 are needed per investigation phase, regardless of if the plot needed it (I'm looking at YOU Adrian in 2-4 Part 2) it becomes as much a cool feature as is is convoluted.
Yes, but remember, Phoenix is a bonified idiot that only wins cases because he thinks outside the box. There wasn't really any mechanic for one to find out if witness is lying, outside of the court room, so the magmata was released. You also have to remember, this was the GBA.
Quote:
Yes, and those two factors are why I'm so hoping for AJ2 rather then PW4. AJ really set itself up well for a sequel. Something that really never existed in any of the previous GS games.
Well, let's just hope they pull it off right.
Quote:
I just named a whole bunch of archetypes! Ignoring the parallels, boss/mentor, aid/partner etc... You've got the Reporter, the Forensic Scientist (Separate from the Detective), a Psychologist, and a Veteran law enforcer. Yes we've had Spark Brushel, and Detective Badd but there is NO overlap with the roles those characters preform and what the mentioned characters do in Again. Brushel acts like a Witness. He does almost nothing when it comes to giving you scoops. In fact, he spends more time trying to drill for scoops out of you. He's a funny character and a great addition to the cast, but as a character 'class', he adds nothing new to the series.
I know you did, but adding in stereotypes for those archetypes just for the sake of it doesn't really do anything either, does it? Besides, Phoenix is on the wrong side of the law system for most of those archetypes to come into contact with him. Remember, he is an independent entity that runs his own law firm, him being the only lawyer within it. 'Sides, nothing in AA seems to be news worthy, or have reporters crawling over the scene. I do remember that a lot of minor characters in AAI seemed to be forensic scientists. The position does seem to be regarded as worthwhile in the AA universe, only being there to give you evidence you could previously not access. Having a major character fill this role would lead to another Gumshoe or Ema, but you would only interact with them to purely get evidence from some lab down town.
Besides, most of the time the reporter is your enemy. Y'know, "nothing to see here".
And Psychologist? Well, there's been no reason for one to appear in AA yet.
Quote:
Detective Badd might be able to fill one of the voids that was present in Again; being the Veteran Law enforcer. But even though he shows up in 3 cases, his role was only really relevant for case 4, and even then acted more like a cross between Gumshoe's mentor and a witness. I want to reserve my judgement on weather Badd is a Veteran Archetype until GK2; if he or someone else returns with useful input then woo! FINALLY.
Well, it would be nice if they even showed up in AJ2. However, what's weird is that even though Badd is an obvious influence on Gumshoe (...somehow. GK-3 seems to be the first time they'd ever met), he acts as a mentor. As I just put in brackets...what is their relationship, they seemed to not even know each other within the force. Maybe in passing.
He does fit the veteran role though, yes he does (and other than knowing everything or acting surprised, he doesn't add much).
Quote:
See? I don't pull my punches. If I feel something is wrong I won't say otherwise. If I see what the developers were thinking then I'll state weather or not it works within those bounds.
Jolly good show then.
Quote:
Visuals wouldn't work. The plot was too complicated at that point. It needed to be explained in verbal or written form.
Mmm... Providence did write a letter. But it sure wasn't a confession or a blue print of the scheme.
Thus that idea is not feasible.
I just thought y'know, since he was psychotic, that he may write letters, or even keep a diary or sorts to track his progress, and since there are two screens...maybe a text extract could show on the right, action on the left?
Quote:
I haven't played Pokémon since Red. But I do see where you're coming from.
Let's just say that Pokemon Emerald was merely Pokemon Ruby and Saphire, but with a little added extra on the end (unlike the third game addition in the 4th generation, that added a whole lot more, or Pokemon Crystal (that kinda did the same)).
Quote:
If you want my two cents on my own two cents; I don't think my opinion is going to change. I read a lot of mystery and science fiction books, and my DS library is largely Adventure games. And I replay my games and re-read my books quite frequently (It drives my brother insane who can't watch a movie or read a book, or play a non-party game more then once) Generally when I form an opinion on something, I tend to stick to it. A sequel may tint my view, but I think I'm consistent. I like to analyze what I'm reading/viewing. Frivolous things like who Phoenix will marry really drive me crazy.
Well, I often replay games that I like myself, but my opinions may change over time though. Take the early Sonic games. I used to think they were awesome, yet not I just think they're simply good games. Over the years they seemed to lose something, it may be how easy I find the games now, or simply how repetitive they are.
Quote:
Often that backfires. Because I spend more time analyzing the game or book then really enjoying it. And since I took broadcast classes, and really tore apart what makes a good story, I can't watch movies anymore. Because I know exactly what's going to happen when within particular bounds. Conversation over, in comes spunky character with a problem or plot twist.
I've seen enough stuff in my time to agree with you. I rarely go out to see movies now because of it, although I will occasionly go and see a movie with a truly great trailer or interesting concept. I went and saw the Alice in Wonderland sequel-like movie recently. Honestly, other than the White Queen and Alice, the movie was quite good. But I did spend most of the time going "Well, duh that's going to happen. Of course she's to going to follow orders" or, "oh, here it comes, she'll infiltrate the enemy's base...and do something stupid get caught".
Bad Player wrote:
There's more to the investigation to spotting the difference; you need to erase the difference, too, and that is where it differs from most "spot the difference" games and introduces its puzzles. It's really more of a "fix the difference" than "spot the difference" system.
So...how is that amazing again? That's nothing really that new either.
Wooster wrote:
My personal theories about the reviewers:
A: Lost interest because of the game's horrible start
B: Couldn't figure out some of Again's Puzzles and thus couldn't progress. I didn't have any real trouble, but we play adventure games a lot here.
C: Played far enough into the game where they felt they could get a good pacing for the game and quit.
D: Actually completed the game.
I actually understand point A. First impressions are everything, and it should be trying to pull you in. The "it eventually gets better" can often be met with "and what's keeping me playing this section right here, now? How do I actually know it's going to get better". Because, let's face it, a lot of players are going to pick up the game, play through case 1 and go "The fuck? I paid for this?"
Bad Player wrote:
...Really? Is that a bad thing...or a good thing? xD