Since when has that mattered? We've got an Ace Attorney musical for cripes sake.

CAPEFEATHER: Sorry for the delay. Well your post was interesting.

Except for that part.

I get your one word summary. But what exactly are you saying 'no' to? I understand you're unconvinced it should be seen or treated as a conceptual alternate timeline over a bizarrely discontinuous same timeline with a 'new story relevance reset' but you do not appear to have established the conceptual alternate timeline in any way an implausible, irrational or unreasonable interpretation of the situation.



Your main [sole?] argument to the precedent and superiority over 'not an alternate timeline' is that it's the 'natural assumption'. But for many people [and i am not theorising mind-reading here, simple observation of peoples' reaction and discussion has demonstrated this] the 'natural assumption' is that if this is the same timeline as GS3, it will be an actual continuation of Phoenix's life scenario from GS3 with elements consistent with it. That things have been demoted since a 'new story' suddenly happened is not a 'natural assumption'.

I mean, a 'new scenario' suddenly occurred in somebody's life meaning their previous life is redundant? It doesn't make sense. The fact that it is some strange un-reality continuation of Phoenix's life, after GS3, but in a different story so Gs3's scenario is now 'irrelevant', is simply illogical. This concept is NOT a 'natural assumption'.

I suppose it's a matter of degree. The writers were forced to make such a mess dragging Phoenix into such a pivotal role in their 'new story' when originally it was intended to be a separate 'new story'.

The fact that it's all so undefined as to continuity leads me to speculate maybe continuity is supposed to be debatable and open to interpretation - or maybe it's an accidental mess.

I think making the continuity ambiguous was a poor decision as all it has done is cause controversy and confusion. And the best the continuity can be deemed is ambiguous. If it wasn't, there would be no argument and no controversy. Every potential opportunity in the game to make it unambiguous was deliberately curtailed.

My original intention here was to demonstrate that conceptual alternate timeline was a reasonable, logical and plausible interpretation of the game situation.

The writers have already challenged the 'natural assumption'. It is NOT a natural assumption that in the same life scenario, a whole lot of a character's fundamental past history and relationships become irrelevant because a 'new story' suddenly occurred at some point in time. We know it's not a continuation of GS3, but how can that make sense? It's not a natural assumption that it's not a continuation of GS3's story.


It gives the writers the freedom to ignore Phoenix arc and write a totally new story as they intended. I don't think anyone can deny there was a lot of executive meddling in GS4 which probably made it inferior to how it could have been otherwise. Takumi claiming he felt 'tied down' in an official Capcom blog is telling, as is Matsukawa's almost ironic statement 'Capcom is a company that is influenced by the voices of fans, almost too much so'.

You didn't find inconsolable issue with GS4, but the game did appear to create some controversy, in Japan too, and there's a likelihood some demands will be made by executives re: Phoenix in GS5, possibly as misguided as the demands which forced him into GS4. I sincerely don't think the writers planned a GS5 future for Phoenix or even Apollo by the end of GS4. EVERYTHING is left ambiguous. Phoenix might take the bar exam... or might not. Apollo isn't even privy to any of his familial revelations. We have no idea if the jurist system is even implemented beyond the trial. etc.

If they genuinely want to write a separate 'new story' [which did seem to be the original desire of the writers for GS4, even if it ended up being ineffectively implemented] this would conclusively define it as such. It's a belated version of the natural separation which should have occurred in the first place. (I think most people, no matter how much they like Hobo!Phoenix, agree the 'new' arc would have progressed much better if Phoenix was not 'returned'.) Right now we don't have that situation, merely an irrational kind of asynchronous ambiguity.



As repeatedly comes up, we have no definitive measure of the fanbase (let alone the Japanese fanbase) and their opinions (and the strengths of them) regarding varying issues with GS4. Trying to claim any group is a 'vocal minority' is not supportable. Besides, what about other people who may share similar opinions but are not bothered to publically express their opinion on these issues? It's a demonstratable fact of human nature to assume your own opinion is the moderate, common one and deviants from this are extremist minorities. All we can do is state we have observed certain groups of people carry opinion x etc. And take indicators - for example the development of GK - the marketing dept. must have determined there was a relevant target market for it (one which seems to take precedent over GS5's development currently.)

See, you admit theres' a 'problem', but just accepting the discontinuity and ambiguity sounds like 'ignoring' it to me.

One of the problems is that the continuity lacks explicit definition (and I do believe this was deliberate, not accidental.) I don't know, maybe some people support this policy, but it seems to me it was merely divisive, confusing and controversy-provoking to the fans. Not resolving this satisfactorily one way or the other is not a justifiable position to continue. Either they just skirt the continuity issue by having Phoenix not or barely appear in GS5, or else they conclusively give a SATISFACTORY continuity one way or the other - it's a continuation of Phoenix's life after GS3, and don't give me that garbage that Maya and Edgeworth become irrelevant to point of not requiring explanation - they do. Or else it's not a continuity of Phoenix's life after GS3 specifically, which can only be conclusively defined as an alternate conceptual timeline, which is what new stories tend to be by default anyway.

People's lives do not suddenly break into a 'new story' or 'new plot' and that they do so challenges the 'natural assumption'. It might have been carried off if we only played as Apollo, but playing as Phoenix in 4-4 cast the continuity into 'grey area at best.' [We can only speculate, but maybe a belated demand for 'more Phoenix' resulted in that MASON insanity in 4-4 being thrown in at the last minute? How much of MASON is to be taken literally? That's a grey area too...]

I'm curious - supposedly some of the people here think that the ambiguity/discontinuity is a minor enough issue to ignore/make prodigious mental compensations for - but would you care if Phoenix just didn't appear in GS5? He just 'left offscreen' [hopefully to be a lawyer or something..] And if not, why no? I'm still trying to comprehend various peoples' attitudes re. Phoenix in the 'new' arc.


Just because controversial discontinuities occurred and were not accounted for in other game series, does NOT render it unreasonable to desire rectification in this series. Person x may have not requested compensation for medical malpractice, but that does not automatically preclude the right of person Y to do so in a different situation. The GS franchise is a unique situation which should be assessed on its own merits alone.


You haven't answered my question. Why are all the references to games outside 1-5 artificially curtailed to be indirect only, context only supplied in past players' heads and outside the game? The 'not to confuse new players' argument is flawed, since 1-5 elements and the magatama return (having the magatama jump out of nowhere unexplained is far more confusing to new players, contradicting the point of the policy argument.) It's clear continuity is being actively constrained and all opportunities to crate direct and defined continuity to GS3 timeline are deliberately subverted.

That continuity can suddenly officially cease/be disregarded/officially demoted to a grey area, is not a logical continuation of Phoenix's life scenario or your much feted 'natural assumption'. What the writers have crated is something that subverts the players' 'natural assumption' following GS3 in any regard.

You aren't denying it. People do, and they have here repeatedly, I don't know if they've changed their mind. Similarly, you may not use the 'it's Apollo's turn now' cliche in that context, but I've seen people using it for that purpose in the past.


1-5 is much more relevant to GS4. The themes of 1-5 are very much continued, GS4 is a definite conceptual follow-up to 1-5. GS4 is very much an ironic spin on 1-5 and game 1 as a whole. (And yes, this irony extends conclusively to Phoenix and Ema too.)

-Major theme of forged evidence causing Phoenix's demise is a common and fundamental theme of both 1-5 and GS4. In 1-5 this was UPGRADED to be the cause of von Karma's demise AND Edgeworth leaving, whilst in 1-4 it was only an irrelevant or minor factor.

- 1-5 very much introduces the theme of fallibility/corruption of legal systems, continued in GS4. Gant: Didn't you know? We aren't
defenders of justice.
Phoenix: What?
Gant: We're merely keepers of the
law.
GS4 style themes and attitudes to law

- 1-5 Together, Phoenix and Edgeworth succeed re. EVIDENCE. They can only defeat Gant with regards to evidence by having the two halves of it on each side of the courtroom. It's made explicit they can only triumph together re evidence specifically. Divided we fall, as so demonstrated in 4-4 flashback [where Klavier is actively working against Phoenix trying to trap him. The irony from 1-5 is obvious.]
Lana: You were working together with
Mr. Wright.
Lana: And because of that
partnership, you were able to
present evidence that
Lana: otherwise would have gone
undiscovered.

-'3 years a lawyer' prophecy.
- Lana: Give it three years. Then we'll see what you have become.

-Irony, Ema isn't a scientist

-Irony, Phoenix isn't a lawyer

-'New journey'
Phoenix: And as for me...
Phoenix: I think it's time I started on a new journey of my own.
Phoenix: A journey to rediscover myself.

-Ema's badge exerts fundamental importance in GS4, something straight out of 1-5. It breaks Kristoph, [significantly] where the magatama fails.

- Kristoph is most obviously an ironic spin on 1-4 Edgeworth. The whole Phoenix-Kristoph story is an obvious corruption of the game 1 story. 'My 'friend' who was the only one who stood up for me in a class/peer trial, he might have committed murder and forged evidence but I don't believe it really. Now I'm older I'm less trusting, but I'll investigate for 7 years... ' The irony is that Kristoph really was a murderer in addition to forging evidence, and betrayed/ruined Phoenix, somebody he could not believe in, whilst Edgeworth was not really a murderer and was a loyal friend, somebody who Phoenix's belief in was justified.

-Trucy is most obviously an ironic spin on 1-2-1-4 Maya. 'Young girl all alone with 1 parent dead and other missing in trouble due to crime not her fault, has lawyer sibling, I will save her.' Irony in that in 1-4 Maya gives Phoenix the decisive evidence [bullet] to win the Edgeworth trial, but Trucy gives Phoenix the forged evidence to lose his career. This can not be mere coincidence.



Well, yes, Phoenix was reduced to a stereotype of his 'character', yet more to support the assertion that 'the character Phoenix Wright' was returned, but not Phoenix out of GS3 timepoint with associated histories and story development. However, game 1 produced the archetypal 'Phoenix Wright Character' and this is what was 'returned', including 1-5. The obvious ironic parallels of Kristoph<->Game 1 Edgeworth and Trucy<->Game 1 Maya more closely align this to Phoenix's game 1 specific plot and characteristics, in a stereotypical manner. Attention was paid to Phoenix's 1-1 to 1-5 characterisation, but not the rest, to return his 'character'. The Easter Eggs do not affect his characterisation or meaningful story/plot/theme elements as a whole.

Ah, but this is a circular assertion. There was no forced requirement to return Ema at all. That they CHOSE to reassert her existence and past history with Phoenix and chose to execute strong and conclusive links to 1-5 in particular and not other cases. And they chose to make her return mired in the same irony as Phoenix's. And Ema's badge in terms of impact is fundamental to the game and more consequential and productive than the magatama. Plus, her continued positive relationship to Phoenix is well detailed [as well as the fingerprint powder, she also is bringing him a gift of snackoos, and other incidents I can't recall off the top of my head, though her 'return' from 'overseas' must be recent, since she doesn't even know who Trucy is, adding to the surreality of the game in general.] And did Starcraft simultaneously regard relationships to chars in past games as irrelevant to the current plot and circumstances when they returned the newer char?


So you advocate leaving it a 'mess'?


GS was unusual in that unlike many games, the characterisation and associated story are fundamental, it borders on the visual novel genre. The game actually revolves around the characters. Thus, discontinuity of characterisation is more inignorable and unjustifiable than it would be in many other series. I haven't played Starcraft but I'm willing to bet it's more plot than character driven. Even Matsukawa has stated that GS revolves around its characters. Saying something is in the dame 'universe' is irrelevant in terms of scenario timelines. No doubt all the Bugs Bunny cartoons occur in the same official 'universe', but they all contradict each other.



We can't read the developers' minds, but we can't be conclusively sure of anything in general really, especially in a controversy. What the developers intended is important, regardless of how it was initially marketed, because that is not how the series will necessarily continue to be marketed or the direction it is written in future. And as you concede, marketing appears to have been a grey area with regards to continuity. As I mentioned before, marketing it explicitly as a separate timeline would have subverted the marketing purpose of 'returning the character Phoenix' (and arguably the controversial role) which was to ensure short term sales to past GS players. And elements from the original story DID come back - Phoenix, 1-5 and a distorted version of game 1 elements. This, indeed, was the problem. And yes it did 'take away from' the spinoff series.



But they already created a difficult situation where nobody will be really happy whatever option they take. Any kind of suggestion re. Phoenix in GS5 seems to bring out legions of people rabidly opposed to it, regardless of what it is.

This would explicitly define it as a 'different story' which would clear up the controversy, and make logical SENSE.

I don't think it's that drastic, considering the situation they've already created. It's just an explicit, rather than ambiguous definition, that this is a 'new story' and 'separate scenario'.



'Number of points' fails to account for their relevant weight or their general trends and principles they contribute to. These types of issues are not mathematical proofs or numerically measurable. The overwhelming strength of all the evidence pointing to specific general trends and principles cannot simply be disregarded.
The fact that it's possible to find some alternate explanation, buy grasping, to every individual time the explanation is subverted, does not provide adequate explanation or strength of compensation to outweigh the inconsistency with regards to the precedented trends and principles as a whole which were established conclusively time and time agian in games 1-3. An EXPLANATION needed to be provided for continual inconsistency to established trends and principles of precedent - and none was given.



It seems nobody has demonstrated at all that conceptual alternate timeline is an implausible or unsupportable interpretation of the GS4 situation, or any less relevant or supportable than... ambiguity, is the maximum I can conceptualise the 'assumed status quo' people appear to support. I didn't expect to 'convert' my self-proclaimed opponents, nobody ever reaches consensus in a controversy.

To me, it just appears to be a more explicitly defined version of what most of you seem to regard GS4 continuity-wise as anyway, although, yes, maybe I have misinterpreted your thinking. Maybe I have not accurately gleaned it from your posts. Curiosity killed the cat - Do you not regard ambiguity with regards to continuity as a problem???

I'm afraid I do though. It's illogical. It makes no sense. It's irrational. It leads to controversy and confusion, as we have seen. It does not have life scenario plausible precedents. It leads to watering down and compromising in a negative manner. And it's not an official line which I believe can be successfully continued in the future of the series.

'Natural assumption' obviously differs to the individual player. For a lot of people, the 'natural assumption' is that if this is after GS3, GS3 elements and characterisation will still be relevant. That it's all been deprecated and suddenly irrelevant because a 'new story' suddenly occurred 2 months after '3-5' is NOT a 'natural assumption'. That it's 'not a continuation of GS3 story even though it occurs after GS3' is NOT a 'natural assumption'.

So... next reply will be to Szabu, since I'm going in reverse chronological order..

---